Facebook has “repeatedly” lied to its oversight board, according to whistleblower Frances Haugen, who announced she would speak to the panel in the wake of the recent scandals.
The social media company reportedly had a list of high-profile users who could flout its rules without consequence, and was aware that Instagram allowed young girls with body image issues to talk about themselves. I felt bad.
Ms Haugen worked as a product manager at Facebook’s civil integrity group, previously worked at Google and Pinterest, and recently shared herself as the source of the leaked documents. wall street journal Which exposed issues within Facebook.
The “CrossCheck” or “XCheck” program reportedly allowed 5.8 million celebrities, politicians and journalists to be “whitelisted” in violation of Facebook’s rules.
Facebook told its oversight board, which has 20 members including politicians, lawyers and academics, and is funded by a $130m trust from the social media giant, that the system was used in only “a small number of decisions”.
The board exists to oversee Facebook and decide on content moderation issues that would prove controversial for Facebook and Instagram.
The whitelist was used to protect conspiracy theories and other material that was debunked by Facebook fact checkers. “We’re not really doing what we say we do publicly,” said an internal review by Facebook at XCheck, which also called a “breach of trust,” according to the leaked documents.
Members of Facebook’s oversight board said they asked the social media company to explain how the crosscheck system works and the criteria for adding pages and accounts to the system.
“Facebook provided an explanation of the cross-check, but did not provide detailed criteria for adding pages and accounts to the system, and declined to provide reporting on error rates,” they wrote, adding that such information was “critical” and “transparency”. Required” ” for the company.
in an interview with 60 Minutes, Ms. Haugen alleged that Facebook had “conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook”, but “chosen to optimize for its own interests, such as making more money.”
one in Statement Published on its blog, the Facebook Oversight Board said it aimed to “gather information that could help advance greater transparency and accountability from Facebook” because “choices made by companies such as Facebook include freedom of expression and human rights.” There are real-world consequences for billions of people worldwide”.
Last week Haugen urged the government to regulate the social media company in front of a Senate hearing, and will appear before the UK government’s Online Security Bill committee on October 25.
Facebook did not respond to a request for comment Granthshala Prior to the time of publication but previously stated that it did not agree with Ms Hogen’s characterization as she had “no direct reports” and “never participated in decision-point meetings with C-level executives”.
However, Facebook’s previous Civic Integrity Lead, Samidh Chakraborty, who would have been above Ms. Hogen at the company, said he found “the shared perspectives on the need for algorithmic regulation, research transparency and independent oversight are entirely up for debate.” are valid.”
Credit: www.independent.co.uk /