Read on Twitter
In the end, the @OversightBoard was just like everyone else in the content moderation space (incl. me): long on criticism, short on concrete solutions.
I really think we& #39;re being overly legalistic in our conception of it here. Lawyers ruin everything! /1
I really think we& #39;re being overly legalistic in our conception of it here. Lawyers ruin everything! /1
The allure of the Marbury v. Madison comparison is obvious. As is the analogy to judicial review.
But it& #39;s wrong here. /2
But it& #39;s wrong here. /2
We can& #39;t just settle into what is familiar: content moderation and the Board are fundamentally different from offline speech adjudication.
The shift is scale and speed is a shift in kind, not merely of degree. /3
The shift is scale and speed is a shift in kind, not merely of degree. /3
Furthermore, the Board (unlike the Supreme Court) was *specifically set up* to give policy guidance.
It& #39;s right there in the Charter! /4
It& #39;s right there in the Charter! /4
To be fair, the Board& #39;s refusal is not in small part Facebook& #39;s fault. Facebook wants to tightly control what the Board can and can& #39;t weigh in on. Not surprising the Board will get grumpy about that. /5
If we must have judicial analogies, it& #39;s worth noting that there are highest courts in other countries that give policy guidance and the US judiciary is hardly known for its unparalleled perceived legitimacy 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤷‍♀️" title="Achselzuckende Frau" aria-label="Emoji: Achselzuckende Frau"> /6
I get the desire to settle for the familiar. The takes write themselves! And I& #39;m not saying we should waste centuries of scholarship reinventing the wheel. /7
But it& #39;s also true that being overly legalistic empowers lawyers in this debate at the cost of others and, idk man, not sure that& #39;s been going great so far /8
(I still love us and think we have value though! I& #39;m not overly self-hating and have made plenty of constitutional analogies in my own work!! There& #39;s good reason to!! But that& #39;s the start, not the end, of the conversation.) /9
Gonna pull out one of my favorite @nicholas_bagley quotes here: "And if all you’ve got is a lawyer, everything looks like a procedural problem."
But the whole passage is worth reading /10
But the whole passage is worth reading /10
The realist in me thinks that this may have just been a product of the unique pressure of the Trump decision and the desire to avoid controversy.
They& #39;ve shown aggressiveness in other decisions and I think they will again. /11
They& #39;ve shown aggressiveness in other decisions and I think they will again. /11
And we shouldn& #39;t throw the split baby out with the bathwater: there was a lot to like in the decision. It brought some transparency (I learnt a lot!) and some of the advisory demands are robust and important. /12
But ultimately, the Board is *not a court* and I think we& #39;ll regret trying to stay too faithful to the image of one in our conception of it.
These are new problems. We need new tools and institutions. /fin
These are new problems. We need new tools and institutions. /fin
