Zuckerberg said in a Facebook article published that day: "I think independence is very important for the following reasons: first, it can prevent us from making too many intra-team decisions. Second, it can establish accountability and supervision. Third, it can ensure that these decisions are for the best interests of our community, not for business. "
In fact, as early as the Cambridge analysis of the incident broke out, Zuckerberg first put forward the idea that Facebook needed to establish a "Supreme Court".
According to science and technologywebsiteThe Verge reported that in April 2018, Zuckerberg told Ezra Klein, editor-in-chief of Vox, a technology website, that Facebook might one day need to simulate the Supreme Court to rule on important decisions regarding content auditing. One of the core ideas is that it can better align decision-making with the norms of speech and laws around the world.
But how this entity will be built and how to operate it is still in the exploratory stage. In Zuckerberg's blog, he only gave a general target time.
Zuckerberg wrote: "We will start a consultation period from now on to solve the most difficult problems, such as: how to choose the members of this organization? How can we ensure that it is independent of Facebook and adhered to its principles? How do people appeal to this organization? How will the institution choose cases from millions of complaints? As part of the consultation period, we will implement these ideas in different regions of the world in the first half of 2019 and formally establish this independent body by the end of 2019.
The New York Times commentary on Nov. 17 said the idea of a Facebook Supreme Court is promising, but it is doubtful whether the Supreme Court model can support the idealized institution of Facebook.
The above article says: "theoretically, the court needs to meet three requirements. The first is due process: such courts allow people to argue about errors that have occurred and to explain their final decisions publicly. The second is representativeness: judges can represent different groups of society and bring different perspectives and expertise to the difficult questions they have to answer. The third is independence: when the legislature debates and promulgates the law, the courts are immune to these conflicting proposals and political views.
But it is not easy to achieve these three requirements in the Facebook Supreme Court.
In due process, what records will Facebook judges use as evidence when improper statements are made? To what extent do decisions depend on Web texts? To distinguish racially discriminatory speech from rap lyrics, it may be necessary to refer to the identity, motivation and audience of the speaker. Globally, this judgment will be more difficult under different languages and customs, historical and cultural backgrounds and political systems.
Then there is a representative question. Who can be a judge of Facebook and how can a judge be elected? Given the diversity of the Facebook community, this independent institution needs to be international, represent different stakeholders, and include the voices of target audiences who hate and harass speech. It seems good to have a "hundred people committee" to represent Facebook's diverse community, but it's certainly hard for such a large body to consider and adjudicate the issues before it.
Finally, the question of independence may make Facebook's proposal to set up an independent oversight body become empty talk. This organization must be independent of its creators, so it must have independent funds. Facebook can't control the sources of funds, but that's not enough. If the court can decide which appeals to hear, then Facebook's arbitration tribunal should also have such broad discretion to choose "cases". But another more important part is that the court is committed to the constitution. The constitution has many functions, one of which is the ability to uphold values in the face of social change. But Facebook uses a more managerial approach, and its rules for content auditing have been constantly revised to adapt to changing environments.