The Oversight Board agreed to look into a case involving Meta’s handling of election content in Brazil. The board stated in a statement that it intends to investigate the social network’s policies regarding election content in “high-risk” areas.
Following the election of President Lula da Silva, a user posted a video in early January calling for people to “besiege” Brazil’s congress. The video also included excerpts from a speech by a Brazilian general, who encouraged people to take to the streets and government buildings. According to the board, the video was reported seven times by four different users, but it remained on Facebook even after being reviewed by five different moderators. Meta later decided to delete the post and issue a “strike” to the person who had originally posted it, following the Oversight Board’s decision to review the case.
- Trump begs Meta to reinstate his Facebook account.
- Google, Meta, and Twitter endorse the EU’s stronger anti-disinformation criteria.
Though the case is related to Brazil’s most recent presidential election, the board’s recommendations could have a more-far reaching impact. “The Board selected this case to examine how Meta moderates election-related content, and how it is applying its Crisis Policy Protocol in a designated ‘temporary high-risk location,’” the group wrote in a statement.
As the board points out, Meta’s “Crisis Policy Protocol,” is a central aspect of the case. The protocol, which was created after the Oversight board weighed in on the suspension of Donald Trump, allows Meta to respond to situations when there is a risk of “imminent harm” either offline or online. So any recommendations that address that policy could end up affecting election-related content around the world, not just in Brazil.
However, that outcome is still months away. For now, the Oversight Board is asking for public feedback on various issues associated with the case before it makes recommendations to Meta. The company will then have 60 days to respond, though, as usual, Meta is not required to adopt policy changes suggested by the board.
