From a New York Times. I'm Michael borrow this Israeli. Today in the biggest ruling since its creation, Facebooks Oversight Board, found that the company had no basis for definitely banning Donald Trump. From the platform, I see with my colleague technology reporter sicilian care about what that tells us about fees, the Supreme Court. It's Thursday may six this is a good tell me about this oversight board that Facebook

he added and what its designed to do. The Facebook Oversight Board was crazy. about a year ago, and it was an idea that Facebook CEO marks a bird had been taking around for much longer. My Oh here, is to create a governance structure around the content in the community that reflects more what people in the community want. He talked about it in two thousand eighteen on OX podcast, as recline show you can imagine even some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court of Appeal for that is made up of independent folks. You don't work for Facebook who ultimately get to make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in in a community, and he described it as a sort of Us Pre court. That would be an Judah body that makes decisions on the hardest and the thorniest in the most controversial speech decision

set face were made, but if we do that well, then I think that that could really were ground on governance for this kind of in it. At community and when you say speech decisions you mean just the novelist most contentious posts at get on Facebook and that people say shouldn't be there or at their posters shouldn't be allowed to boost yes and they may hundreds of these tough decisions every day with three billion users. These are decisions about political figure, as these are decision about NEO Nazis that take place every day, website and the sheer volume that Facebook conference of this kind of content is for. The company overwhelming and Zuckerberg has said that it's too much for one company at any sort of individuals within a company and himself even to have two the arbiter of these kinds of decisions got so this bore

he's. Gonna relieve the company, in theory of the obligation to sort out the most difficult questions that it faces about. What can be honest platform fatty idea? The idea is that a user and facebook itself can appeal decisions or refer decisions that are much too controversial or just too hard So a user, for example, who may have had opposed taken down or their account suspended, can go to this oversight board an appeal, the right to get their content reinstated. So the idea is for Facebook to lessen its grip over the power it has on speech over its platform, and so what kind of person ends up being applied,

add to this panel, the Supreme Court of Facebook, which I must say something a pretty prestigious job so far. There are, then, twenty members appointed to the Facebook Oversight Board and the twenty members are turned. Former politicians, including the former Prime Minister of Denmark and human rights activists, fair international. They represent several kind Greece, and it should be noted that Facebook constructed this board and they help choose the first members, and they had a say and gather following members who are chosen. They fund the board with a one hundred and thirty million dollar trust. The whole idea is to have this outside body, this third party court, if you will be at arm's length from Facebook, so that description would seem to immediately raised questions about just how independent this oversight board really is so. How does the board talk about that? Had as Facebook talk about that

yeah. The independence of the board has really haunted the company since its establishment a year ago, and they point to a few things. They say number one that once the board takes a case, there is zero communication between board members and the company. Even so, there is a wall, that's erected essentially gotcha. Never too. They say that all decisions are binding and what that means is that, once the board decides on a case that Facebook must implement its decision and the third is they say that there is a trust that was established, a trust that pays the board members and that pays for the operations of the board. all of its employees and the reason why they point to that as they say that there is no financial commingling between

company and the board that there is an outside body that administers all the money that's paid to the employees of the board, so, in other words, Mark Zuckerberg, can't technically right the checks for, are the board members and that There is not influence potentially financially because the board is being paid by a third body, not facebook, and once this clause I Independent board, is set up What kinds of rulings has it issued so far? Well, it's only issued a handful of ruling so far, the first came out starting January They all have to do with posts that facebooks hook down, because the postman later? The companies own rules on speech and they ran

dammit really from an Instagram post in Brazil that showed a photo abreast nipples, and in that case the board decided that Facebook was wrong to take down their posts because the photo was meant to promote breast cancer. Awareness HA In another case, a user quoted a naughty propagandist and Facebook took down that pose saying that the post and the quote violated the company's rules against hate speech. But the Facebook Oversight Board overturned that decision and said that the user, in fact had intended to use that quote that naughty propaganda quote to compare trumps own comments and each to nazi propaganda, and they said that it was not a violation, nor was it intended to be in violation of the company's hate speech rules. So in the vast majority of the decisions, the boar has really aired more on the side of free expression and has

ruled the company's initial decisions and in fact that has been in some ways the best proof of its independence, To the way the board has proven its independence from Facebook is, by directly contrary meaning facebooks original decision in almost all these cases to take down a post here. That's right, though we should keep in mind, if there really have only been a handful of decisions made so far by the Facebook Oversight Board and those decisions are really small compared to the big case that the Oversight Board agree to take on four months ago, which was the indefinite ban of President Trump and what was a decision before the boy on this case trump versus Facebook? So the decision before the board was whether Facebook was justified in its decision on January, seven to indefinitely ban trump for Facebook.

an instagram, and we have to remember that our Facebook Trump had thirty five million followers and on Instagram he had twenty four million and on January six on Facebook in history, Graham trumps said that the capital rioters were great patriots and that the election was stolen from us. Facebook said that his comments inside of violence and violated their own internal rules on speech and what the board was wrestling with was whether that decision was justified rights who doesn't get much bigger than does. The board is being asked to rule whether a former and are in chief of the United States, the president of a country can be permanently barred from ever posting anything on any facebook site

it was a defining and the biggest decision that Facebook had before it, and it is incredibly important because tromp is banned permanently from Twitter and Youtube has indefinitely and trump, but has not said when they will allow him back on. So the decision by the Facebook Oversight Board presented the first opportunity for Trump to regain one of those mega phones and for the board. It is their super ball of decisions of board. That's just a few months

in effect- and this is the big one, and so how does the board go about making this kind of a decision? The board deliberated this particular case, just like it does every other case before it. It chose five members to look specifically at the trunk case and they looked at the particulars of what Trump said in his post in a facebook was justified and taking those posts down, as well as banning the president's account at the time and those members. Those five members went through nine thousand comments that were submitted from the public while there were public comments submitted, got reflects anger that their company took down the site as well as warning said, the company should not let Trump

gone one commenter said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely if you permanently block trump for just being trump, you ve gone even further down the power corrupts Rabbit Hall with other Mega ridge oligarchs who are exercising their power muscles to show us who really runs America. On the other side, however, people were very strongly in favour of keep in trumps, account down one comment or said: Donald Trump is a toxic garbage person who pedals flies and conspiracy theories in hate. Facebook was right to ban him, so this board waded through nine thousand of those comments. That's right Ok. So when do you get word that there is actually a ruling, I'm guessing this might, or my hundred all resemble what it's like when the Supreme Court alert

journalists that a decision is coming. You know actually felt a lot like that, Michael. In fact, the boar gave forty eight hours to the media to prepare for the announcement of their decision. They made their decision days before and they actually had told Facebook about there, decision, but this was all kept under lock and key and, unlike most news related to Facebook, there were no leaks on this on Wednesday morning, I woke up really going into the announced a blind and at nine a m I open my email and there's a decision and a note that for? It is going to get on the phone and explain their ruling will be right back.

The following message is brought you by Charles Schwab, the distance between Washington in Wall Street get shorter all the time from the government's response to the corona virus pandemic to the upcoming election. The policies in politics coming out of Washington are sure to impact markets MIKE Townsend, jobs vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs host the original podcast Washington, wise investor, where he takes a non partisan, look at the stories that matter most to investors, listening Schwab, DOT, com, Slash Washington, wise or wherever you get your podcast well come to the webinar. Please stand by the weapon, our will and shortly remain on the line Susan, you tell us about this call. The broadcast is now starting all attendee far in listen only mode, so we get on the phone, and members of the board are there and they launch right into it,

you all for attending this morning. Our decision this morning is relatively simple and straightforward, and we hear from one of the co chairs Michael Mcconnell, who is a constitutional law professor at Stanford, boss call first, we agree that Facebook had sufficient justification to remove MR trumps generate sixth posed for violation of the policy against praising encouraging violent actors. He said first, Facebook had sufficient justification to remove his posts on January six. Second, we agree that Facebook get sufficient justification to suspend Mr Trumps account, at least for the duration of what the Department of Homeland Security called a quote, heightened risk of violets. However Mcconnell then said, but we hope

old that it was emperor, that is to say in violation of dates, but own rules as well as generally accepted principles of freedom of expression for Facebook to make that suspension indefinite. He said, facebooks own policies do not authorize an indefinite suspension, but users and their audiences must not be left in a state of uncertainty as to time more reasons for restoration, so they're saying in essence, Facebook. You were right to ban the president and to take down those posts on gene

Seven, because there is an imminent threat of harm. Things were really heated during that time and the president was violating your own rules, but they said Facebook. You are wrong in imposing an indefinite ban without any criteria, more any guidelines on when if there could be an end to this indefinite ban based, let's make its decision and be held accountable for whatever the size, ultimately rid of the public. That will be the judge that is as it should be. In a democratic society So what facebooks locomotive a Supreme Court has said here is that an indefinite ban of a former president violates facebooks own rules and the kind of corporates. You're it of Facebook as a social media platform, and so what does the boar

then say: Facebook is supposed to do with this objection to an indefinite ban. So the board effectively kicks the decision back to Facebook. The board says: you have six months to decide on your own, whether you want to ban trump. permanently or not. We shouldn't do this and one thing that really stuck out to me Michael say said in applying a vague standard, less penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. So Facebook sends a decision to the Oversight Board in January twenty. First, the oversight board on me since it back to Facebook effectively. I don't feel like I'm talking your colleague item we talk about the Supreme Court has ordered, was given a case from the ninth circuit. It didn't like that.

and so I kicked it back to the main target, but that's effectively what happened here, which is that Facebook Supreme Court is kicking a case. Act down to a lower court in this case to Facebook itself in saying you didn't do this correctly and it's you problem to figure out how to do it correctly. Yes- and this may take a lot longer for a final decision as it weaves through these different decision making processes I want to linger for just a minute on the boards thinking about why a permanent ban is inappropriate. It sounds like its basing it to keep. Going down this Supreme Court metaphor on the kind of Facebook Institution on facebooks own rules, but I think, on a practical level, there are plenty of people who would look at what former president Trump did and genuine sixth and say the ultimate reason to permanently ban someone from a social media platform. They helped inside a riot at the United States, capital

yeah. I was really struck by how the board's decision and the reasoning on a permanent ban westward of procedures by the same way, that you see that a lot with court rulings like we'll courtroom in real life, where they really wanted to adhere to the letter of the law and the law in this case being facebooks own laws. So is this we sort of parallel world, Michael, where a private company forms a oversight board? This third party that is trying to adjudicate these species decisions according to laws created by a private company? It's all very similar in the parallels, are striking to what systems are like within the U S and around the world so because this ruling seems to be based on technical language from accompany rather than a giant principle of free speech.

What implications does this willing have? Does it have any implications for free speech by government leaders like a Donald Trump I think world leaders were hoping for clear guidance on what would kick them off of a site like Facebook. They wanted the Oversight board decision to clarify what has for a long time, been a lot of ad hoc decision making when it came to politicians and what politicians say on Facebook, but They didn't get that, in fact, what they got was the board sending the decision back to Facebook, which some world leaders have said is the problem to begin when Angela Merkel of Germany had said after facebooks. Ban tromp on January. Seven that this points to really the

power of a few big internet platforms over speech entirely, and it shows that these companies have too much power, and so by sending this decision back to Facebook It again puts the power making and the decision making in the hands of the company that many political leaders feel are too powerful as gatekeepers a speech to begin with, right. So personally, Angela Merkel would have been reassured to know that they cause I independent board gonna be making a decision like this saying this is what will get you kicked off Facebook when the boar decided not to really make that decision to send it. The company it was reading, forcing the idea that is enormously consequential. Decisions about what can or cannot be and who can or cannot be on a platform like Facebook are ultimately gonna be made by one or two people like Mark Zuckerberg. That's right, Michael essentially, Facebook is back to the drawing board in making its.

Decisions on Donald Trump instead of the Supreme Court of Facebook, which the whole idea of creating a supreme court of Facebook. Yes, that's right to do that. works, Coburg even likes this decision them and if I'm, the leader of Facebook. I would very much, I think, have hoped that this outside Board would make this decision. For me, that's he said all along that. He doesn't believe that he or Facebook should be making such consequential decisions, but ultimately Facebook will still be confronted with the decision on what to do with Trump, which has been a problem for the company throughout the former presidents. And you're, and continues to do so even with the President out of office in what was formerly the trumps responds to this decision. Do we know about two hours after the oversight, birds decision, Trump issued a statement and

statement landed in my inbox, my email, and in that statement he said a lot of the predictable unusual things. He says about social media, which is that its run by radical left us and that these companies are too powerful and he continues to deny the election results and a process, and, as I was reading trumps statement and the board's decision, I was thinking that the board was essentially saying I think that there should at least be the possibility that trunk comes back onto the platform. The question, however, is how and under what circumstances, because, as we can see, Trump is still doing all the things they got him banned from social media just on different platforms. This time, so Facebook all be faced again with the same kinds of questions and will need to solve those questions for itself rain.

This board. Indeed, thank you so yet we appreciate it. so much for having me I'll be right back. don't miss the new Peacock original documentary event, Epstein shadow glean Maxwell this chilling three. Our series investigates the powerful connected and mysterious Maxwell once heiress to the Maxwell fortune. Her life took assorted turn when she met cereal sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. This gripping documentary explores the complicated story that eventually led to Maxwell's high profile arrest, get up to speed with the details of our case before her upcoming trial. Every episode of Epstein shadow glean Maxwell is streaming now only on Peacock sign up a peacock tv dot com

here's what else you need today on Wednesday, the Biden administration said that it fevered weaving patent protection for covered nineteen vaccines, a potential breakthrough in the glass. will effort to speed up vaccinations. Suspending patent rights. Allow companies in smaller countries to cheaply manufacture the vaccines by using the recipes developed by companies like Pfizer, Madeira and Johnson and Johnson, but the move is opposed. But yours, pharmaceutical industry, which argues that giving away patent rights, destroys the incentive for companies like Pfizer to invest lifesaving vaccines in the future The fate of the number three House republican representative lives, fanny of whaling appeared to be doubt on Wednesday, as fellow Publican. Leaders, including

Representatives, Kevin Mccarthy and Steve's police moved out her showing insufficient loyalty to former President truck Cheney who voted to peach job after the January sixth riot survived of previous vote. after a few months ago, but has up, set house Republicans anew by Continuing to call out trumps lies about election fraud. Tidies episode was produced by Eric Grubby, neither Pasok and Austin Mitchell. It was edited by Angela Davis, Lynn and LISA Chow, an engineer like this one, that's it for the daily I Michael by sea tomorrow, the radio

and Jaguar F type is made to take you places. No other sports car can to a transcendent State were design and performance, make driving sublime the re, sculpted hood and seductive contour slice through the wind, the cockpit is driver focused and the super urged the eight in the F type are: can go from zero to sixty and three point. Five seconds always follow locals, be limits. All this makes the Jaguar F type like No other sports car in the world learn more at Jaguar, USA, dot com.