Meta’s Oversight Board: Challenges of Content Moderation on the Internet

1Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The regulatory framework of international human rights law (IHRL) was originally designed to protect individuals from the power of states. However, the global expansion of private entities’ power raised social awareness of the impact of business on human rights. The discussion around businesses and human rights has not been oblivious to the debates surrounding freedom of expression in the era of digitalisation. While the digital public sphere has undoubtedly democratised the public conversation, it has also generated risks and challenges around content moderation and freedom of expression. Platforms have therefore expanded their powers, creating a growing number of content rules and increasing the amount of content they remove. This has led to the rise of legitimate complaints concerning the lack of remedies for the proliferation of harmful speech and the ‘excessive’ content moderation that limits or excludes content protected by the freedom of expression. Within this framework, the discussion remains open as to who should regulate social media and how it must be done, what oversight mechanisms should be implemented to ensure people the protection of their rights online and prevent negative on- and offline impacts. This article provides an outline of the challenges generated by communication in the digital sphere and addresses the discussions on public/private regulation of content moderation. Additionally, this article addresses the importance of ensuring that the rules applied by the platforms are based on IHRL and discusses the creation of Meta’s Oversight Board as a self-regulatory mechanism, as a novel and complementary alternative to governing social media.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Martín, P. S. (2023). Meta’s Oversight Board: Challenges of Content Moderation on the Internet. Erasmus Law Review, 2023(2), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000253

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free