Expertise and Participation in the Facebook Oversight Board: From Reason to Will

This paper explores two strategies that the Facebook Oversight Board has available to build its own legitimacy. It argues that the Board's members perform as apolitical decision-makers. With that goal, the Board has portrayed international human rights law as a set of exogenous and universal principles that human rights experts can translate and implement on social media. The paper suggests that, instead of hiding its power behind alleged translations of higher principles, the Board could try to build its legitimacy by promoting the wider involvement of civil society. The Board could wield its power to strengthen civil society's participation in Facebook's drafting of content moderation rules. The Board could then present itself as a legitimate body not because it applies international law but because it encourages the participation of more actors and defers to their judgment. Despite the many limitations of this proposal, it would include more actors in the governance of online speech instead of shielding experts from participatory politics.

Automated summary

This paper examines two strategies that the Facebook Oversight Board can employ to establish its own legitimacy. It argues that the Board's members act as impartial decision-makers. To achieve this, the Board portrays international human rights law as a set of external and universal principles that can be applied on social media by human rights experts. Instead of relying solely on these translations, the paper suggests that the Board could enhance its legitimacy by promoting the involvement of civil society. By using its power to facilitate civil society's participation in Facebook's content moderation rules, the Board can present itself as a legitimate entity that values collective judgment rather than just applying international law and expert opinions.