IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v47y2023i5s0308596122001653.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Dvoskin, Brenda

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Dvoskin, Brenda, 2023. "Expertise and Participation in the Facebook Oversight Board: From Reason to Will," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:5:s0308596122001653
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001653
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102463?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content," SocArXiv tgnrj, Center for Open Science.
    2. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22.
    3. Haggart, Blayne & Keller, Clara Iglesias, 2021. "Democratic legitimacy in global platform governance," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    4. Haggart, Blayne & Iglesias Keller, Clara, 2021. "Democratic legitimacy in global platform governance," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 45(6), pages 1-1.
    5. Malhotra, Neil & Monin, Benoît & Tomz, Michael, 2019. "Does Private Regulation Preempt Public Regulation?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 19-37, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Badouard, Romain & Bellon, Anne, 2025. "Introduction to the special issue on content moderation on digital platforms," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gorwa, Robert, 2024. "The Politics of Platform Regulation: How Governments Shape Online Content Moderation," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 299876, May.
    2. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    3. Mendieta-Aragón, Adrián & Rodríguez-Fernández, Laura & Navío-Marco, Julio, 2025. "Tourism usage of digital collaborative economy platforms in Europe: Situation, behaviours, and implications for the digital policies," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    4. repec:osf:socarx:ubxgk_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Kemal Veli Açar, 2023. "On a global child protection fund financed by international tech companies," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(1), pages 162-172, February.
    6. Jesús Marolla-Gajardo & María Yazmina Lozano Mas, 2025. "Anti-Bullying in the Digital Age: How Cyberhate Travels from Social Media to Classroom Climate in Pre-Service Teacher Programmes," Societies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Gillespie, Tarleton & Aufderheide, Patricia & Carmi, Elinor & Gerrard, Ysabel & Gorwa, Robert & Matamoros-Fernández, Ariadna & Roberts, Sarah T. & Sinnreich, Aram & Myers West, Sarah, 2020. "Expanding the debate about content moderation: Scholarly research agendas for the coming policy debates," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29.
    8. Michal Kaššaj & Tomáš Peráček, 2024. "Sustainable Connectivity—Integration of Mobile Roaming, WiFi4EU and Smart City Concept in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-37, January.
    9. Jesús C. Aguerri & Fernando Miró-Llinares & Ana B. Gómez-Bellvís, 2023. "Consensus on community guidelines: an experimental study on the legitimacy of content removal in social media," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Berg, Sebastian & Hofmann, Jeanette, 2021. "Digital democracy," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23.
    11. Mirna Rahmadina Gumati, 2024. "Digital Sovereignty or Regulatory Overreach? The Case of Indonesia’s Platform Registration Policy," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 25(4), pages 131-146, December.
    12. Jiménez Durán, Rafael & Müller, Karsten & Schwarz, Carlo, 2022. "The Effect of Content Moderation on Online and Offline Hate: Evidence from Germany's NetzDG," CEPR Discussion Papers 17554, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    13. Gorwa, Robert, 2021. "Elections, institutions, and the regulatory politics of platform governance: The case of the German NetzDG," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    14. Veale, Michael & Matus, Kira & Gorwa, Robert, 2023. "AI and Global Governance: Modalities, Rationales, Tensions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 19, pages 255-275.
    15. Hongyang He & Bin Zhang, 2022. "Effective Synergy of Market Agents: The Core of Achieving Multi-Agent Governance on the Internet Platform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    16. Gorwa, Robert, 2021. "Elections, Institutions, and the Regulatory Politics of Platform Governance: The Case of the German NetzDG," SocArXiv 2exrw, Center for Open Science.
    17. Trithara, Dakoda, 2024. "Agents of platform governance: Analyzing U.S. civil society's role in contesting online content moderation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4).
    18. Griffin, Rachel, 2022. "New school speech regulation as a regulatory strategy against hate speech on social media: The case of Germany's NetzDG," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9).
    19. Berg, Sebastian & Hofmann, Jeanette, 2021. "Digital democracy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23.
    20. Taylor, Maisy & Vollmer, Sarah & Ravat, Zaynab & Benjamin, Garfield, 2025. "Who's at stake? The (non)performativity of "stakeholders" in UK tech policy," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 14(3), pages 1-31.
    21. Michalon, Barthélémy, 2025. "The role of civil society organisations in co-regulating online hate speech in the EU: A bounded empowerment," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 14(1), pages 1-29.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:5:s0308596122001653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.