Facebook Oversight Board Member Julie Owono Takes Us Inside The Trump Decision

Julie Owono is a member of the Facebook Oversight Board, which today announced it's leaving Donald Trump's indefinite suspension in place. Owono joins Big Technology Podcast to discuss the decision, the board's deliberations, and what comes next for Facebook and Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Alex Kantrowitz?

  This episode is brought to you by Genesis. What does it actually take to put Agentic AI to work across an entire enterprise? I recently spoke with Genesis chairman and CEO Tony Bates about why orchestration is emerging as a competitive advantage in customer experience and what companies need to get right in the AI era. Then I sat down with Adam Mitchell, head of enterprise business solutions at Voya Financial, to go inside a large-scale Agentic CX transformation, including the business decisions, trade-offs, and lessons along the way. You can watch both conversations now on my YouTube channel today. It's never been more challenging to get frontier compute. How do you know where to look, who to trust, or how much to pay?

• 0:43Alex Kantrowitz?

  Akash is an open cloud that provides easy access, flexibility, and peace of mind. That's how companies like Razer were able to cut their inference cost by 15 times. Visit akash.network/alex for a free consultation. That's akash.network/alex for a free consultation.

• 1:14Alex Kantrowitz?

  Hello and welcome to the Big Technology Podcast, a show for cool-headed nuanced conversations of the tech world and beyond. Well, former President Donald Trump is staying off Facebook. The Facebook Oversight Board, a group of independent folks the company assembled to have final say on some content decisions, announced today they are upholding Facebook's indefinite suspension of Trump with some caveats. Joining us today in an emergency podcast, the day of the decision, is Julie Owono, a member of the Oversight Board and the Executive Director of Internet Without Borders. Julie, welcome to the show.

• 1:50Speaker 01

  Thank you so much. Thanks for having me.

• 1:53Alex Kantrowitz?

  It is a pleasure to have you here. Monumental day, of course, for the organization that you're involved with. How has the feedback to the board members been today now that you've decided to uphold the ban? Have you been concerned about getting hate mail? Is your inbox overflowing, or has it been fairly quiet?

• 2:10Speaker 01

  Well, thankfully so far, at least in my case, I haven't spoken to my other colleagues yet, but I haven't received hate mails yet, but which I'm happy because it probably means that the decision that was reached was quite fair and quite clear to everyone, no matter what board, I mean, what position you have on the matter. What I'm really happy is that the conversation, of course, is about the former president of the United States, but there's also great interest in how this can impact other world leaders, other influential voices on social media platforms, in particularly on Facebook and Instagram.

• 2:55Speaker 01

  And yes, also what it means for regular users, basically, you know, what should they expect from a company like Facebook and Instagram? And what we think is that they should expect transparency, they should expect clarity in the rules, they should expect that the rules are applied the same way to everyone and not in an arbitrary way.

• 3:17Alex Kantrowitz?

  Yeah, and so just to start off with the decision, instead of just saying, okay, this is what the board rules and that's that, you sort of punted it back to Facebook. There was a pretty remarkable line in the initial summary where the board said, "In applying a vague standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board," I guess the vague standardless penalty is the indefinite suspension of Trump, "and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook's request and insists Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty." So essentially what that means is indefinite suspension is upheld for the time being, but the board wants some more, you know, action from Facebook.

• 4:03Alex Kantrowitz?

  Whether it's able to compel Facebook to take some more action is, I think, still a question mark. We can get into that. But how did you arrive on this decision? Because the whole point was, folks were uncomfortable with the power that Facebook held. So now the board is saying it's... Anyway, I'm curious what your thought is on this all this stuff.

• 4:24Speaker 01

  Yes, well, our mandate is to, you know, make binding decisions on cases as they are presented to us. What was presented to us was an indefinite suspension of the, the, the, those two pages. But we have to decide

• 4:46Alex Kantrowitz?

  The two pages being?

• 4:47Speaker 01

  What we believe. That's right. The two pages of the former president, sorry. The two pages on Facebook and on Instagram. What we decide is based on Facebook community standards, which are basically Facebook's rules. Those rules did not provide such penalty, because such penalty, in our opinion, in our analysis, was open door to arbitrary, which we obviously don't want. And in addition to making rules on, I mean, making decisions on, based on Facebook's rule, we also make those decisions based on international human rights principles and standards. And one of the principles, when an entity wants to censor, because that's

• 5:32Speaker 01

  what we're talking about, you know, when you limit freedom of expression, you censor. Well, to do that, you need to do so based on clear and existing rules. This was not the case here. So there was no way we could endorse and say, you made the right call to indefinitely suspend. Because this is not only about the President Trump. This could be someone else tomorrow, you know, who has, who sees themselves applied a rule out of nowhere. And we obviously don't want that. So that's why we told Facebook, you should make a reexamination, the right call based on existing rules. And we also provide guidance on what those existing rules could look like. So that's why we also gave six months to Facebook to do.

• 6:15Speaker 01

  This reexamination in order for the company to have time to take into account our recommendations should the company see them, well, fit for the case and for its policies in general.

• 6:28Alex Kantrowitz?

  Before we jump into these, I just want to ask, like, it's pretty remarkable. Again, going back to the decision, like, we'll get to the recommendations, but I want to talk particularly about the way that you came to this choice. The fact that, like, because for a long time, Facebook was like, you know, Trump is held as the president and there's a newsworthy standard and he's held above, you know, what most other users are, would be judged on because he is the president, this is newsworthy and we don't want to remove that content based off of our content from our platform. Then, of course, the January six riots happened. Facebook says, you know, Donald Trump encouraged these things and then suspends him indefinitely, which I think you're pointing out here isn't exactly in the rulebook.

• 7:11Alex Kantrowitz?

  Did it strike you that the decision to bend Trump indefinitely was essentially, you know, a Mark Zuckerberg decision? Was that what you guys were pointing at?

• 7:19Speaker 01

  It was part of the discussion. I mean, we all, you know, read that that post on January the seventh on the company CEO. And, yes, we felt that it was not, if it wasn't in the in the community standards, if it wasn't in the terms of service of the company, then it shouldn't be, I mean, it shouldn't even be a debate about that, in my opinion. So, yes, what we're telling Mark Zuckerberg and and and other, you know, leadership leadership at the company is that, yes, you're asking us to help you, basically, restore.

• 8:02Speaker 01

  I think we could almost call it rule of law, basically, which is, yes, people have to be aware what they can and cannot do. And you have to be able to explain yourself and you have to be open to be held accountable when you're doing, you're not doing it right. Because it has implications beyond just, you know, you, Mark Zuckerberg, or whoever else at the company. It has implications for potentially 2.8 billion people, I think, everywhere in the world. So, yes, there's no way this can rest only on your shoulders. And there are ways for it not to rest only on your shoulders. And these these ways are. Clearly and deeply rooted in principles that the whole humanity has agreed to uphold.

• 8:47Alex Kantrowitz?

  How did it feel when the board ended up getting this opportunity to decide whether the ban should be upheld or not? Because from my understanding, your purview was, you know, allowing people or allowing cases to be appealed to you when Facebook takes stuff down and should you put it back up, like a post or a piece of content? But now it was an account, and not just any account, but the account of the former president of the United States to be to be put on. So just emotionally first, like, you know, how did it feel to to get handed this case? That like, oh, wait a second, I just signed up to this board. You know, maybe we're going to be doing some content decisions here or there.

• 9:29Alex Kantrowitz?

  And now essentially you're held, you're handed the biggest, I mean, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but what seems like the biggest decision, content moderation decision in social media history. So how did that feel to you?

• 9:41Speaker 01

  Wow, it felt like a huge responsibility. And that's why I think we we needed this time to, yes, make sure we're not missing anything in this case and also that we're reading all the nine thousand plus public comments that have been submitted. So it was, it's a huge responsibility. But I really hope that in this terr- quite unknown territory of how should companies

• 10:22Speaker 01

  like Facebook and Instagram, should, how should they handle speech by powerful figures in the world that includes elected public officials in countries, powerful countries such as the United States? Well, how should they or others, how should they treat their speech and the right of users, other users on the platform? And yes, I I'm very, personally very happy that what guided most of our discussion, all of them actually, was really

• 10:59Speaker 01

  Yes, how how does this protect freedom of expression and and the rights of others? And it wasn't it wasn't a very easy question. But I personally have learned a lot in this in this cycle of deliberations. And yes, hopefully, we've come up with something that's deeply rooted in in those principles. Yes.

• 11:24Alex Kantrowitz?

  Yeah. And and so how did you and the fellow members? Did you do you have like a WhatsApp group or like when you first got word that it would be the Trump decision that you're going to handle? I guess you get a decision whether to accept it or not.

• 11:39Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 11:40Alex Kantrowitz?

  What were what was the chatter like among you in the beginning? Like whether we should or we shouldn't take it? Take us back there.

• 11:47Speaker 01

  So there is a, how do you call it? A case committee, case selection committee that's composed that that meets on a rolling basis and that's composed of, I think, five board members. And, well, I I think that the committee just just met and we received an email, an urgent email, saying that, yes, we have.

• 12:13Alex Kantrowitz?

  Are you on that committee?

• 12:15Speaker 01

  I can't answer that for reasons related to impartiality and protecting members from potential lobbying. But I will at some point. I mean, every every member sits at that on on that committee at some point, since it's on a rolling basis.

• 12:34Alex Kantrowitz?

  Okay.

• 12:34Speaker 01

  And, yeah, we received an email saying that we have an emergency meeting, the whole board, to discuss a case. And yes, that's that's how it happened.

• 12:46Alex Kantrowitz?

  And do you know why they decided to take it?

• 12:49Speaker 01

  A rationale for taking cases is usually. Taking cases that have implications beyond the individual uh user that's concerned, who's concerned, sorry, sorry. And um we also uh took the case because it had policy implications, including related to political leaders, how their speech should be treated on the platform. Uh it had policy implications that were, yes, extremely important to deal with. So I think these are the two, two main reasons for us accepting this case.

• 13:24Alex Kantrowitz?

  And then what do the deliberations look like once you decide that you want to take the case? Like, there aren't lawyers or, you know, a presentation of arguments. So is it just like everybody gets together on a Zoom call? Like, what is the, what does it actually look like when you make a decision like this?

• 13:42Speaker 01

  Yes, given the current circumstances, everything is virtual. What happens is there are several deliberations meeting. Depending on the complexity of the case, it could go from three to more if the case is complicated. And uh usually the first meeting is to familiarize ourselves with the case uh and the, the documents that we have forward. So you, in this case, it was the referral by Facebook, reading its rationale for referring the case. And after that meeting, uh if as board members, we feel like we need additional information, which we obviously did in this case, uh we can request uh some political background briefing,

• 14:27Speaker 01

  policy background briefing. Uh and also, yeah, we have a public comments period that allows people to tell us what we should do, what they think we should do in this case. Um, yes, and basically, and we also have the possibility to ask questions to Facebook, which we did. Uh we asked forty six questions and Facebook did not answer all of them, as you've seen. Um and yes, after that, we just deliberate based on the, all the elements that we have requested and we, and that we have forward. And yes, we, we reach a decision based on that.

• 15:06Alex Kantrowitz?

  And what did those deliberations look like? So I know you got a statement from Trump or from the Trump camp saying, hey, I should be let back on. Now the deliberations, are they like, you know, Zoom meetings where, you know, people argue for different sides? What were the, and I'm curious, like, what were the options that you were considering before you landed on this one?

• 15:32Speaker 01

  So I can't give, you know, very detailed of what was discussed, but what I can say...

• 15:40Alex Kantrowitz?

  Sorry, but why not give some detailed decisions, detailed information about what was discussed? Because at the end of the day, like, the whole, I was gonna say, you know, why not give some of the, because at the end of the day, like, the whole, I mean, there's no real rule that's gonna limit the board being transparent about what happened in there. And I think that, like, as the public decides, tries to decide this, you know, I think that, like, it would be a good thing if you shared as much as you could about what actually happened inside these rooms and what options were considered.

• 16:12Speaker 01

  Of course, of course, the board is willing and has always been very transparent on how, on how it operates. We will have, I believe, a report out on, you know, how this case was possible, what happened. And we also have, as you've seen in the decision, detailed information on the deliberations and particularly the minority opinions that were expressed by some, some board members. But, I mean, what I can, what I can say is that, of course, the discussions were, were,

• 16:54Speaker 01

  there are different opinions on the boards, right? There are people with different backgrounds. But what, again, what I found extremely encouraging is that we are able, and we've, we've shown that in the past, that we're able to set aside whatever we think on the, you know, the person's issues involved and look at all this, taking a bit of perspective and looking at all this with the, with the lens of, yeah, is it, is it, is it? Grounded in principles, is it principles? And but yes, we did have strong arguments. We did have discussions on whether or not before letting

• 17:39Speaker 01

  the former president back on, should the company decide to do so following its reassessment? Well, should the company ask the the former president to refrain from claiming? Yeah, again, that the election, the 2020 election was not was not fair.

• 18:01Speaker 01

  There were discussions on should we talk about the shooting and looting publication and how and does that even play into our decision? Yeah, should we look at the the history? And what I find fascinating, what I found fascinating with this case is that I I think for the first time, we really had a very thorough history of an account of what happened on an account. And yes, it it it was important. It's important because it gives context. And that we always tell in our decisions is that these companies and particularly Facebook and Instagram cannot make those those important decisions without taking into account the context.

• 18:45Alex Kantrowitz?

  Yeah, and now what what were the arguments? Now, you know, I I know we're we're reticent to compare this board to the Supreme Court, but at least with the Supreme Court, we get to watch the arguments. This what the your deliberations weren't open to the public. So, Julia, like you're our window into this whole situation. So can you share a little bit more about what the arguments were back and forth?

• 19:07Speaker 01

  So in the in the statement from from the user, so from the the legal team that represented former President Mr. Trump,

• 19:18Speaker 01

  they argued that The board should look at this case through the lens of US law and US constitutional law, particularly, and the First Amendment, more specifically.

• 19:31Speaker 01

  So, we did have internally a discussion, not on applying the law itself, because our mandate completely prevents us, I mean, does not allow us to do so, and I think that's great, because not all laws around the world are, you know, like I said, like in the US. So, we did have discussions on to what extent we should reference the First Amendment in our decision. Mainly, the concern was to make sure that the American audience that would read it would, you know, be able to make parallels with the First Amendment and how it is applied in the US.

• 20:11Speaker 01

  We chose not to focus too much, I mean, we did mention at some point that there are resemblances, and I think my colleague, Michael McConnell, has in interviews explained that there are concepts that are quite similar between freedom of expression, as it is understood in the international law, and First Amendment. But we chose not to focus too much on that, because, again, this decision is not only about President Trump, it's about other influential users, too, who could be concerned if they have a similar case. And if we focus too much on a specific law, then tomorrow, I don't know, I don't know,

• 20:56Speaker 01

  whoever else, whoever other world leaders could ask us, "I want you to base your decision on and to reference my law into your decision," which would have made things very complicated.

• 21:08Alex Kantrowitz?

  What were the arguments like inside the board for people who were interested in restoring Trump's account? What did they say?

• 21:17Speaker 01

  Well, most of the arguments for those who who thought reinstatement would be would be fair, given the fact that, again, indefinite is not a penalty that's provided by the community standards. Well, for them, mostly it was about protecting political speech, and particularly protecting the ability of citizens to access speech by their politicians.

• 21:47Speaker 01

  Yeah. But I would say most of the conversation was not focused, per se, on should he be back or not. I think it was mostly focused on was the penalty applied here provided by the community standards? And once we quickly saw that no, well, we had to discuss then what what should be done. And that's that's why we we came up with, you know, the current solution that we offered, which is, yeah, reassessing, but reassessing it with in mind

• 22:28Speaker 01

  the severity of the violation that happened, and also with in mind the potential for future harms. This should really guide the this reassessment by Facebook.

• 22:38Alex Kantrowitz?

  And I understand that there was a an agreement that it was wasn't as simple as saying, should we uphold or, you know, or turn away this ban? But like, there must have been a decision, you know, we're going to kick it back to Facebook. In the meantime, should we uphold or should we remove this ban? So why uphold versus remove?

• 23:05Speaker 01

  That's a very, a very great and complicated, tough question. I think it's before making a decision on whether the account should be put back up, I mean, the page should be, sorry, the access to the page should be restored, because that's what it's about.

• 23:27Speaker 01

  Like we say, a lot of things rely on context. And there were a lot of elements here that we feel we're lacking to allow a fair

• 23:43Speaker 01

  Decision and and and clear decision to be made. What is this context? Well, for instance, the potential for future harms, which we referenced in our, you know, in our decision. But also beyond that, we we've made a recommendation asking the company to assess whether or not its platform had been used in properly prior to January sixth and, you know, had contributed to what happened to January the sixth. And also, of course, there's the history of the page, which we also asked the company to take into account when it makes this reassessment and particularly focusing on the severity of the violations.

• 24:27Speaker 01

  So, um, yes, I I would say that the there was a lot of context and there is still a lot of context that that's missing. And that's what we're telling the company. You cannot make such an important decision without having the necessary and and and, you know, accurate context available to decide.

• 24:50Alex Kantrowitz?

  Hmm. And so were there people in the oversight board who were like, let's put Trump back on until we can figure this stuff out? Or was it somewhat unanimous that he should be kept off until Facebook makes this decision?

• 25:08Speaker 01

  I mean, there were, we were unanimous that if a law, a regulation, a rule, a standard, no matter how you call it, is not clear, then it it it it should, it shouldn't, you know, it shouldn't be used to justify a decision. That's, I guess, what we all agreed on.

• 25:37Speaker 01

  And that's why we're making recommendations on how to make those those rules more clear to the user. And I I really insist on this because the issue, yes, of course, reinstating, not restating, is of course of prime importance, but I think we should not not lose sight of. The fairness of the decision we come up with, you know.

• 26:02Alex Kantrowitz?

  Yeah.

• 26:02Speaker 01

  Some people in France attribute a quote to the writer Voltaire and said, I don't agree with you, but I will defend, you know, your freedom of expression. I think we should also apply this to ourselves here, you know. We might not agree with everything that this page has been writing and publishing, but there are principles that go beyond our personal beliefs, and we should uphold these principles no matter what.

• 26:34Alex Kantrowitz?

  Yeah, and now I'm, you know, I'm in asking these questions, I'm not saying, I'm not being prescriptive here, I'm not saying the board should have put Trump back on. I'm just kind of curious, you know, again, if the rule, I'm just kind of, I want to get into your thinking a little bit more because if the rule was, you know, unclear and he was banned and the ban was upheld. And it seems like a lot of people on the board are interested in free expression. Then why still, and it did seem like, at least in your language, there was some agreement that Trump should have been banned. Then why still keep that ban in place? Was there a feeling that it, you know, that it was fair?

• 27:16Alex Kantrowitz?

  And also you, you mentioned that everybody was unanimous and were on your outcome. There was, well, anyway, let's get into that too. Like was that, were there any like, you, you guys voted on it? And were there any no votes to the resolution or? Anyway, tackle those in whatever order you like. I'm curious.

• 27:35Speaker 01

  So the, the decision is adopted as soon as there is a majority. So there was a majority in favor of this decision. I personally do not have, as we're speaking, the detail of the vote. I suspect this should be available to us very soon. And I also hope it will also be explained later on to the public. But.

• 28:01Speaker 01

  What what what what's what I find very interesting here is that

• 28:10Speaker 01

  that that they were harsh. Honestly, there were discussions on the the the yes, on what it mean, whether or not we should actually substitute ourselves. That was talked about. I mean, substitute ourselves to Facebook, I mean, to to tell what should have been the right call in this case. I mean, put ourselves in the shoes of the company, basically, and say, OK, we're going to place ourselves back to January the 7th and say what should have been done. There were discussions on that. There were also. But

• 28:46Speaker 01

  ultimately, what I think is interesting is that we are building a a process, really. And to build that process, it's it's important to have these moments where, yes, you said the principles and, yes, you you apply them. And then, yes, that that's how the that's how clear, transparent, consistent rules are are created, I think, in a in in this in this dialogue, I hope, really.

• 29:17Alex Kantrowitz?

  Yeah. And now, were there was there any discussion among board members about like what the consequences would be like personally if you reinstated Trump like or sort of I'm curious like, you know, if people were concerned about like blowback in their communities if they voted to reinstate him on on the service.

• 29:41Speaker 01

  There were concerns for personal safety. Yes, of course.

• 29:49Speaker 01

  Actually, no matter the the outcome, because, you know, not everybody.

• 29:54Speaker 01

  I mean, there will always be something to say about this decision, right? No matter where you stand. So, yes, there have been concerns about the the safety of board members. And I really would like to take this opportunity to to really thank our administration, who has been relentlessly working to make sure that we're, you know, in a position to make this decision without fearing for our safety. So, but I wouldn't say this has prevented us from having the hard discussions and, you know, making the decisions. Yes, I don't think it has really prevented us from doing our our work. I mean, it hasn't prevented me.

• 30:37Alex Kantrowitz?

  Because, you know, Zuckerberg.

• 30:39Speaker 01

  Doing it.

• 30:39Alex Kantrowitz?

  No, it's brave of you to to. I mean, look, there's a lot of, we've talked about it on this show in the past. Like, there's a lot of, you know, elements that goes into joining a board like this. It's not a straightforward thing, but it's also somewhat brave. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg has lots of personal security. I don't know if Facebook is paying for that for you and and the board. So it is a it is a brave position to be in to say, OK, let's let's go ahead and be part of this.

• 31:08Speaker 01

  Yes, no, there is a budget for our security that's provided in the, you know, the seed funding, can we call it that? For the for the operations of the board that that was given through a trust by Facebook. So concern over safety are, you know, a priority, really.

• 31:31Alex Kantrowitz?

  It's not like you have like a Secret Service set of bodyguards that are standing outside your door after a daylight today.

• 31:40Speaker 01

  No.

• 31:40Alex Kantrowitz?

  Where there are a number of guards.

• 31:42Speaker 01

  We have a we have a very responsive security team. And, yes, the threats are being taken care of as soon as they arise.

• 31:52Alex Kantrowitz?

  Okay, yeah, I mean, like, the reason, and I know I've asked you about this a couple of times in our discussion, but it is sort of, it gets to the heart of this, which is, you know, which the board's explicitly told Facebook, like, you can't, you know, make a decision outside the rules and then use the board to shield yourself from accountability. And, you know, that goes to the fact that, you know, you are, again, putting your safety on the line in some way in order to be, I mean, Zuckerberg, so he spends millions of dollars a year on security, I believe, so.

• 32:24Speaker 01

  He does.

• 32:26Alex Kantrowitz?

  Anyway, the last thing we should talk about is the fact that you've asked, the board has asked Facebook to come up with a better decision and a better policy and get back to the board, I think, within six weeks, is that right?

• 32:42Speaker 01

  Six months, oh, sorry.

• 32:44Alex Kantrowitz?

  Six months, okay, so.

• 32:45Speaker 01

  Three, three things, actually, so, they have seven days to implement the decision. So in this case, they have seven days to say when they're gonna reexamine the case of Amin's decision. The second thing is, they have 30 days to respond to the policy recommendations, which are separate from the binding decision. So we have made policy recommendations and Facebook has to respond within 30 days. And within six months, Facebook must come up with its new decision on this case, based on the decision that we shared with them.

• 33:21Alex Kantrowitz?

  Yeah, and so from my understanding, the board can make its decision on content choices and then policy recommendations and everything else after that is up to Facebook. So can you compel Facebook to make a new decision within six months, or can Facebook just say, well, that's nice, you know, the board made its decision, you know, we're not compelled by the charter that we set up to actually go ahead and do anything else, and that's the end of the discussion?

• 33:48Speaker 01

  No, Facebook is bound by the decision on the case. So if we say you have to reassess within six months, they have to reassess within six months because that's part of the binding decision. That's a binding part of the decision. Um, now, of course, like you rightly said, uh, we don't have, you know, a force to have Facebook, to make sure that Facebook enforces our decision. That is true, but I think from a moral perspective, um, and also to show its commitment to human rights,

• 34:28Speaker 01

  like the company has, you know, announced very recently and has repeated in the past years. Well, to show that it has really, it is really committed to protecting freedom of expression. Um, I think, yes, that the ball is on their side now and, and, and to show that, yes, this, this matters to them. I do think it does, otherwise, uh, they could have not sent this case in the first place. Because like you rightly said at the beginning, this is not the type of cases we were initially created to look at. Um, but I, I, I, I'm really confident that the decision that we came up with offers enough guideline, guidance, sorry, to the company

• 35:12Speaker 01

  and to help it make the most principled decision, uh, in this very complex case.

• 35:19Alex Kantrowitz?

  I, I didn't realize that it could be, a decision could be binding where you can punt the decision back to Facebook. But I guess that's part of the board's, man, the board's remit.

• 35:29Speaker 01

  No, it's part of our remit. We were asked, uh, about the indefinite suspension and we said, it's not, I mean, the suspension was right, but the indefinite is not right. You have to reassess this. So this is absolutely binding. Um, uh, what I can say also is what, what we see with the board is also its agility. Like I said, we were not supposed to look at account suspensions. Now we're able to do so. And it really speaks to how much, I think the company does need this type of guidance. Uh, and, and that's why they, they were so eager to, to send this case, for instance, uh, because they, they need the guidance and we're, we're, we're here to provide it.

• 36:11Alex Kantrowitz?

  Right, and I'm, I think I'm generally in favor of this idea of the board. But yeah, it's gonna take a long time, I think, to get it completely right. There's been discussion that the board can't really get to like the core issues of what's wrong with Facebook, and it's mostly just like making content decisions. And that's why I think the questions that you asked Facebook that Facebook didn't answer are so interesting. And, okay, so I'm just gonna read. Okay, "In this case, the board asked Facebook 46 questions, and Facebook declined to answer seven entirely and two partially. The questions that Facebook did not answer included questions about how Facebook's newsfeed and other features impacted the visibility of Mr. Trump's content,

• 36:54Alex Kantrowitz?

  and whether Facebook had researched or plans to research those designs, those design decisions in relation to the event of January 6, 2021, and information about violating content from followers of Mr. Trump's account. The board also asked questions related to the suspension of other political figures and removal of other content, whether Facebook had been contacted by political office holders or their staff about the suspension of Mr. Trump's account, and whether account suspension or deletion impacts the ability of advertisers to target the accounts of followers. Facebook stated that this information was not reasonably required for decision-making, in accordance with the intent of the charter, was not technically feasible to provide, was covered by attorney-client privilege,

• 37:36Alex Kantrowitz?

  and/or could not be shared or provided because of legal privacy, safety, or data protection concerns." That's fascinating, because it shows essentially that, you know, if I'm Facebook and I'm seeing these questions, I'm starting to feel, oh god, we created a monster, because now the board actually is going beyond its, you know, actual remit to assess the outputs and actually go to look at the machine itself, and asking about the way that our algorithms work and our newsfeed works. So, I'm just kinda curious, like, what your perspective is there? Because it seems like the board is now trying to get into the actual mechanics of the way that Facebook, the platform, works. And is this something we can expect more of?

• 38:20Speaker 01

  What I can say on this is it's it's just another proof for us that in order to make the best decision possible, we need all the context. And if that context includes looking at what happened before January the sixth and how it happened.

• 38:45Speaker 01

  It, it, yes, I think it should be, it should be discussed and that's what we are trying to do. That's why we also did not shy away from recommending the company despite its unwillingness to respond to us. We recommended to the company to conduct the assessment on what happened before January the sixth from a technical perspective, but also from a policy perspective. And it's really this dialogue that I find absolutely fascinating in helping the company evolve with its policies and how it deals with content and while protecting our free expression. This open dialogue between the board and the company will, yes, bring, I hope,

• 39:30Speaker 01

  some, some answers and a way, a way forward. I'm, I'm confident on that.

• 39:39Alex Kantrowitz?

  Great. All right, Julie. I know we're over time. It's been a pleasure having you on the show. How can people get in touch with you or the Oversight Board, whatever you prefer?

• 39:50Speaker 01

  Well, I'm on Twitter, @JuliaWano. And our organization is as well Oversight Board, if @OversightBoard. We have a website, OversightBoard.com, if I'm not mistaken. And yes, we also have a lot of cases coming up and you are able to provide public comments. We have, I'm not sure we've announced new cases yet, but we do have some very interesting cases. So please do check them out.

• 40:19Alex Kantrowitz?

  Come on, break some news. No, I'm kidding. I pressed you hard enough over this conversation. So I really want to say thank you, Julie, for the really great answers and giving us some insight into this new process that I think is going to become more and more important as social media evolves. So I do appreciate that. Thank you to everybody for listening. We will actually be back tomorrow with our regularly scheduled episode. That's with Sridhar Ramaswamy, who is the CEO of Niva, a subscription search company. He used to run ads for Google and now he is creating a new search engine. No ads, but you pay to use it. It's a really interesting concept. So stand by for that tomorrow. Thank you again, as always, for listening. If you're at this point and want

• 41:03Alex Kantrowitz?

  to give us a review on Apple's podcast or the podcast app that you use, that would be much appreciated. If it's your first time here and you want to subscribe, hit the subscribe button. We come out with these conversations every Wednesday and sometimes we do a bonus episode like today's and we'll just push the normally scheduled episode till tomorrow. Thanks again. We'll see you then. And once again, it's been great having Julie on the show. We look forward to more of these type of discussions.

• 41:29Speaker 02

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.