Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Meta’s oversight board has clashed internally over Mark Zuckerberg’s “free speech” overhaul of content moderation, as it rushes to find ways to hold the US social media giant to account over the changes.
Zuckerberg’s decision last month to end Meta’s fact-checking programme in the US and weaken its hate speech policies globally has prompted tensions between board members, while some are furious with the $1.8tn social media platform itself for the unexpected shake-up, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
Members of Meta’s oversight board — an independent body tasked with ruling on sensitive moderation issues — were not consulted on the U-turn in any way, four people said.
In the lead-up to the announcement, the board, which includes people such as former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt and ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, was also only given a cursory notification about the fact-checking announcement and no insight into the hate-speech changes, leaving many members feeling blindsided, the people said.
While the board’s co-chairs put out a statement saying it “welcomed” the news that Meta was reviewing its fact-checking programme, this did not reflect the views of many board members, they said, and in particular did not apply to their thinking on the hate speech policy shift.
The board is now pushing to find ways it can review the changes, provide accountability and ensure they are compliant with human rights obligations.
One option could be to write its own white paper or report, one person familiar with the matter said. Other members want the board to carry out a so-called ‘policy advisory opinion’, which allows it to request information and then offer guidance and non-binding recommendations to Meta on its policymaking. However, Meta would need to instigate this process and any decision on a way forward has yet to be made.
One person said there had been “raised voices and passionate statements in both directions” from board members, with another noting a strong divide between US conservatives represented on the board and other global members.
The overhaul — part of an escalating push by Zuckerberg to curry favour with President Donald Trump — has sparked concern from civil rights groups as well as some advertising companies.
Last week the Global Coalition for Tech Justice, a movement of over 250 civil rights organisations and experts across 55 countries, called on Meta’s oversight board to resign en masse in an open letter.
“The choice before you is stark: either lend credibility to a company that is wilfully dismantling safeguards for democracy and human rights, or take a stand in defence of the very principles you were appointed to uphold,” the letter read.
The board, which was launched in 2020 and includes journalists and global experts on human rights and free expression, has been heralded by some as a unique mechanism for accountability in the social media industry, and by critics as an attempt by Zuckerberg to offload responsibility amid growing scrutiny of his platforms.
The board relies on Meta for funding through a trust, but secured an annual budget of at least $35mn until the end of 2027, according to an announcement in September.
Among the main concerns, some board members worry that ditching professional fact-checkers in favour of a ‘community notes’ approach pioneered by Elon Musk’s X — whereby users themselves flag misinformation — was rushed and could lead to real world harm in places where there are active conflicts or ethnic tensions.
The fact-checking changes are expected to be rolled out in the coming months in the US. It is unclear if and when this might be expanded globally.
Others have been shocked by the changes to hate speech policy — which allows immigrants, women, LGBTQ and trans communities to be called certain slurs — and warn this could be wielded by authoritarian regimes to target minority groups.
Paolo Carozza, board co-chair and professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, told the Financial Times that the board has “the strong desire” to advise Meta on how it designs and rolls out the fact-checking changes.
He added there was an “expectation that Meta will allow us to work with them” on this given its “constructive” relationship to date.
Carozza said he did not know of any board members planning to resign. He said the board is reviewing four ongoing hate speech cases, which would provide an opportunity to weigh in with a position on those policy changes.
“Of course there are going to be differences — even sharp differences — among our members,” he added. “What the board is about is reasoned, deliberate, careful judgment.”
Meta declined to comment.
Some board members have already spoken out publicly in a personal capacity. Rusbridger wrote in January that “misinformation, disinformation and hate speech — including dehumanisation — can very much kill . . .[and] lead to wide civil disturbance as we have seen in the USA and the UK”.
Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a board co-chair, said in an interview that while fact-checkers had historically corrected more conservative content than left-wing content, he wished that Meta had reformed its systems “in less contentious and partisan times”.