Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to eliminate censorship and content moderation policies blindsided the company’s oversight board — and the U-turn has led to friction among the members, according to a report.
The 21 members of the independent board, which for years had been tasked with ruling on hot-button issues related to hate speech on the Facebook and Instagram parent’s social media platforms, were given little more than a cursory heads-up before Zuckerberg made the announcement last month, the Financial Times reported on Friday.
The board’s leadership, which includes former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, initially issued a statement in support of rolling back the fact-checking system.
However, insiders told FT that the statement did not reflect the views of many board members, particularly regarding the loosening of restrictions on hate speech.
Stanford law professor and board co-chair Michael McConnell observed that fact-checking efforts have historically flagged more conservative content than left-wing material, but lamented that Meta chose to implement reforms in an era of heightened political division.
Now, the board is scrambling to establish ways to scrutinize the changes and ensure they align with human rights principles.
One possibility under discussion is the release of a white paper outlining concerns and recommendations, according to the FT report.
Another option is initiating a policy advisory opinion, a mechanism that would allow the board to formally request information from Meta and provide non-binding recommendations.
However, this process would require Meta’s approval to move forward, and no decision has been reached on how to proceed.
Behind closed doors, discussions among board members have reportedly been heated, FT reported.
Some members see the shift as an attempt by Zuckerberg to cozy up to President Trump, a move that has alarmed European civil rights groups.
The Global Coalition for Tech Justice, a network of over 250 organizations spanning 55 countries, recently issued an open letter urging all oversight board members to resign, accusing them of legitimizing a company that is “dismantling safeguards for democracy and human rights.”
European countries have implemented strict regulations to curb content that is deemed harmful on social media.
The Digital Services Act (DSA), enforced by the European Union, mandates swift removal of harmful content, increased transparency and stricter moderation policies.
Germany, France and the UK all have strict laws on the books requiring tech platforms to monitor content that remove speech if it is determined to be “disinformation.” These regulations reflect Europe’s aggressive stance on digital accountability, contrasting with more lenient US policies.
Since its creation in 2020, Meta’s oversight board has been viewed as a novel attempt at accountability in the tech industry.
However, critics argue it serves more as a buffer for Zuckerberg to deflect responsibility for the company’s controversial decisions.
While the board operates independently and is funded through a trust, its financial backing comes from Meta, which has committed at least $35 million annually to its operations through 2027.
A key concern among some board members is the replacement of professional fact-checkers with a crowdsourced approach akin to the “community notes” system used by Elon Musk’s platform X (formerly Twitter).
Some fear this strategy could prove ineffective in regions experiencing violent conflict or political instability.
The fact-checking overhaul will roll out in the US in the coming months, but it remains unclear whether the changes will extend globally.
Another point of contention is Meta’s revised hate-speech policy, which now allows certain slurs directed at marginalized communities to remain on the platform.
Critics worry this could embolden authoritarian regimes and further marginalize vulnerable groups, particularly immigrants, women and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Oversight board co-chair Paolo Carozza, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, has expressed a strong desire to provide Meta with guidance on implementing its fact-checking revisions.
He emphasized the expectation that Meta will engage with the board in a “constructive” manner, given their history of collaboration, according to FT.
Despite calls for mass resignations, Carozza stated that he is unaware of any board members planning to step down.
The board is reviewing several hate-speech cases, which could provide an avenue for it to formally weigh in on the policy changes.
Acknowledging internal disagreements, he noted that the board’s purpose is to facilitate “reasoned, deliberate, careful judgment” rather than act as a monolithic entity.
Meta has declined The Post’s request for comment.
