By Kevin Frazier[1]
PURPOSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE USER ADVOCATE (UA)
THE UA AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION
TENURE AND SELECTION OF THE UA TRIAD
PURPOSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE USER ADVOCATE (UA)
The content moderation system developed by Meta provides limited and, as set forth below, inadequate means of participation by users. The current system confines user participation to a single user challenging a content decision on a single post.[2] This limited form of participation diverges from Meta’s stated goals as well as human rights norms and laws.[3]
The creation of the Office of the User Advocate (UA), as proposed in my Richmond Journal of Law and Technology article[4] and detailed further below, will close the gap between Meta’s goals and the rights currently afforded to Meta users via its content moderation system. Housed within Meta, the UA would guarantee that users had a more meaningful role in every part of content moderation—from the development and amendment of Community Standards to the application and adjudication of those standards.
The UA will work on behalf of users to hold Meta accountable, to advocate on behalf of their interests, and to represent them in formal proceedings involving Meta, the Oversight Board (OB), and other stakeholders. Meta has rightfully celebrated its prior efforts to involve users in its content moderation system[5]—the UA is simply a deliberate and permanent means of continuing those efforts. As Meta expands its user base, refines its content moderation system, and creates new platforms, the UA will become even more valuable to Meta’s efforts to comply with human rights norms and law.
THE UA AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION
Meta has embraced a human rights framework for structuring and evaluating its content moderation decisions.[6] Fulfillment of Meta’s human rights responsibilities requires the creation of a means for users to exercise their right to petition, without which freedom of expression cannot fully be realized.[7]
The right to petition constitutes a fundamental right under human rights law.[8] An open procedure for individuals or groups alleging a violation of their rights or the rights of those they represent is an “essential, even irreducible, means of giving effect” to the protections set forth under human rights law.[9] In short, for Meta to protect the rights of its users, it must provide an “opportunity to demand that the right[s] be protected.”[10] The UA would provide such an opportunity.
By creating this opportunity, Meta can set a meaningful precedent for other platforms. Though some platforms tout their role as public spheres, the rule-making processes allow a staggering small role for the public. This discrepancy will become all the more apparent as platforms continue to play a larger role in communal discourse.
UA POWERS
Though Meta currently affords users who allege an improper decision; to remove content or leave that content up, the opportunity to challenge such a decision, this mechanism falls short of the sort of opportunity necessary to enforce the human rights norms and laws at the heart of Meta’s Community Standards.[11] This mechanism prohibits challenges by groups of affected users, prevents contestation of a specific Community Standard rather than a single post, and does not allow for proactive amendment of those standards in anticipation of crises and other events likely to increase the odds of violations.
Given the size of Meta’s user base, it is impossible for every challenge by a user or group of users to go through the entire content appeals process.[12] Meta has responded to this reality by attempting to prioritize cases for review by the OB based on the severity and virality of a post, and the likelihood of post violating Meta’s Community Standards.[13] Though perhaps unintentionally and in a way that would mirror the decisions of users, Meta has usurped the ability of users to signal their own priorities with respect to the enforcement and content of Meta’s Community Standards.
The UA will ensure users have a meaningful right to petition by overseeing mechanisms for users to identify Community Standards in need of reform, to request certain classes of cases receive OB review, and to ensure their values and preferences are represented in formal proceedings involving Meta, the OB, and other stakeholders.
The following is a list of potential UA powers. The grant of even a few of these powers to a UA would serve as a meaningful improvement on the status quo. Stakeholders are encouraged to debate these powers and offer suggestions of their own.
Accountability
The UA can further the rights of users by performing the following accountability actions:
- Monitoring Meta’s adoption of OB policy recommendations.
- For example, the UA could solicit user feedback on which recommendations they want Meta to prioritize.
- Auditing, evaluating, and informing the metrics collected by Meta and the OB and reported in their respective updates.
- For example, the UA could advocate for the inclusion of Meta’s application of its case selection criteria to the cases it recommends to the OB to better understand how Meta assess severity, virality, and likelihood of violation.
- Attending Meta’s policy meetings and other engagements with external stakeholders
- Participating in the evaluating and selection of Meta governance team members and/or OB members.
Advocacy
The UA can further the rights of users by advocating on behalf of them and taking the following actions:
- Identifying user concerns by:
- conducting an annual survey of users regarding the content and application of Facebook’s Community Standards; and,
- empaneling a citizen assembly (hereinafter, the “Assembly of Meta Users” or “AMU”) that is representative of Meta users to stand “on-call” for a two-year term during which they will respond to requests for input on everything from recent OB PAOs and case decisions to the candidates for Meta and OB positions (as described further below).
- Sharing and advancing user concerns by:
- serving as their representative in;
- the OB adjudication process:
- for example, you could imagine a UA Attorney General tasked with writing briefs for consideration by the OB.
- Meta Community Standards review sessions.
- the OB adjudication process:
- consolidating user concerns into a sort of “class action” case for review by OB;
- The UA could operate a platform akin to Change.org where users could publish petitions for certain types of cases and specific Community Standards (as well as allowances to those standards) for consideration by other users–if a sufficient number and diversity of users backed any such petition, then the UA could have the authority to demand review by Meta and the OB.
- regularly developing a case selection criterion for Meta’s adoption based on the concerns of users; and,
- publishing a response to every OB decision that expresses how the UA thinks the decisions impacts user’s rights.
- serving as their representative in;
- Empowering users to share their concerns by:
- empaneling user juries of peers of the user with a post undergoing OB adjudication; and,
- these jurors would provide the OB with a better understanding of the context in which a post was made. For instance, if a candidate’s post was challenged, then a jury of users from that jurisdiction could review the facts before the OB and answer clarifying questions issued by the OB.
- overseeing the election and participation of user representative(s) on the OB.
- users should have at least one permanent member on the OB. This representative could work closely with the UA to make sure they understand and represent the interests of users in all content disputes.
- [other actions may achieve this goal]
- empaneling user juries of peers of the user with a post undergoing OB adjudication; and,
UA PLACEMENT WITHIN META
The UA should be formally within Meta but operate in a highly independent fashion. By residing within the Meta organization, the UA can better fulfill its mission due to several factors:
- Increased understanding of the technical limitations of Meta’s platforms
- More opportunities to connect with Meta employees and learn about their priorities and plans
- Greater access to expertise within the Meta community regarding how best to consult a global user base
- More reliable funding by virtue of being just another part of the company.
This placement, of course, would raise a number of valid concerns. Chief among those concerns may be the independence of the UA. The selection process proposed below should alleviate such concerns.
TENURE AND SELECTION OF THE UA TRIAD
Given Meta’s global user base and the representative nature of the UA, no individual could alone steer the UA. Instead, a collection of three individuals—each serving staggered, five-year terms—should form the UA Triad. Each member of the Triad would be a UA Director—tasked with overseeing the office’s accountability and advocacy functions.
Selection of Directors should involve the OB, Meta, and users to ensure each major stakeholder has a stake in the success of the UA. The OB should nominate candidates and Meta should select the Director. The Assembly of Meta Users (as defined above) should have the authority to veto Meta’s selection. If this latter mechanism gives rise to concerns that the AMU would simply veto each of Meta’s finalists, then the AMU could be assigned a fixed number of vetoes.
ORGANIZATION OF THE UA
The UA Triad would oversee a division of Meta akin to a foreign service department. Directors would select Regional Directors (RDs) and assign each RD to one of Meta’s three self-identified main regions:[14] Europe, Middle East, Africa (EMEA); Asia and the Pacific (APAC); and North America. These three RDs would then build a team of ambassadors to build relationships with users in countries in their respective regions. RDs would also create analyst teams tasked with researching current events and crises that may warrant action by the RD or the Triad.
CONCLUSION
Meta’s adherence to human rights norms and laws necessitates the protection of user’s right to petition. Users currently lack that right. By creating the Office of the User Advocate, Meta can ensure that users have a meaningful opportunity to challenge Meta’s Community Standards, to participate in OB decisions, and to shape the platform that reflects their values and concerns.
This White Paper should start, rather than conclude, a conversation around the right to petition among social media users and the need for something akin to the UA proposed above. If you are interested in this topic, please let me know—I am willing and eager to talk further.
[1] Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Summer Research Fellow at the Legal Priorities Project. Frazier earned a Master of Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School and a JD from the UC Berkeley School of Law. Send feedback to kfraz@berkeley.edu.
[2] See How the Meta appeals process works, Meta (accessed May 18, 2023), https://transparency.fb.com/policies/improving/appealed-content-metric/
[3] See Facebook Community Standards, Meta (accessed May 18, 2023), https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/; infra note 7 and accompanying text.
[4] Kevin Frazier, Why Meta Users Need a Public Advocate: A Modest Means to Address the Shortcomings of the Oversight Board, 28 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 596 (2021), https://jolt.richmond.edu/files/2022/04/Frazier-Final.pdf
[5] See, e.g., Facebook Community Standards, Meta (accessed May 18, 2023), https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/ (discussing users as key stakeholders in the development of Facebook’s Community Standards).
[6] See Meta Q1 2023 Quarterly Update on the Oversight Board, Meta at 8 (May 17, 2023) (Stressing the value provided by the Oversight Board’s “crucial overlay of global human rights frameworks and diverse perspectives to [Meta’s] most significant and difficult decisions.”)
[7] See Lima Principles, Organization of American States (Nov. 16, 2000) (identifying the right to petition as essential to the protection of other rights); DRL Notice of Funding Opportunity, U.S. State Department (Feb. 2, 2023) (listing the right to petition as a part of freedom of expression); see also Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, Organization of American States (n.a.).
[8] See, e.g., Schonberger v. European Parliament, C.J.E.U. Case 261 at Paragraph 13 (2014).
[9] See, e.g., Michael J. Dennis and David P. Stewart, Justifiability of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Should There be an International Complaints Mechanism to Adjudicate the Rights to Food, Water, Housing, and Health?, 98 A.J.I.L 462, 467-68 (2004).
[10] See Virginia Leary, Justiciability and Beyond: Complaint Procedures and the Right to Health, Rev. Int’L Comm’n Jurists at 105, 106 (Dec. 1995).
[11] Facebook and Instagram have Community Standards and Community Guidelines, respectively. This White Paper refers to these standards jointly as Meta’s Community Standards in the interest of brevity.
[12] See Zoe Kleinman, Meta board hears over a million appeals over removed posts, BBC (June 22, 2022), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61893903
[13] How Meta Prioritizes Content for Review, Meta (Jan. 26, 2022), https://transparency.fb.com/policies/improving/prioritizing-content-review/
[14] Meta Q1 2023 Quarterly Update on the Oversight Board, Meta at 18.
Image Source: https://images.app.goo.gl/1wdKVgufDJcAvrpe9