{"id":11003,"date":"2023-06-21T05:00:19","date_gmt":"2023-06-21T09:00:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jolt.richmond.edu\/?p=11003"},"modified":"2023-06-20T10:20:11","modified_gmt":"2023-06-20T14:20:11","slug":"white-paper-office-of-the-user-advocate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/2023\/06\/21\/white-paper-office-of-the-user-advocate\/","title":{"rendered":"White Paper: Office of the User Advocate"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Kevin Frazier[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PURPOSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE USER ADVOCATE (UA)<\/a><\/p>\n

THE UA AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION<\/a><\/p>\n

UA POWERS<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Accountability<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Advocacy<\/a><\/p>\n

UA PLACEMENT WITHIN META<\/a><\/p>\n

TENURE AND SELECTION OF THE UA TRIAD<\/a><\/p>\n

ORGANIZATION OF THE UA<\/a><\/p>\n

CONCLUSION<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PURPOSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE USER ADVOCATE (UA)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The content moderation system developed by Meta provides limited and, as set forth below, inadequate means of participation by users. The current system confines user participation to a single user challenging a content decision on a single post.[2]<\/sup><\/a> This limited form of participation diverges from Meta\u2019s stated goals as well as human rights norms and laws.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The creation of the Office of the User Advocate (UA), as proposed in my Richmond Journal of Law and Technology article[4]<\/sup><\/a> and detailed further below, will close the gap between Meta\u2019s goals and the rights currently afforded to Meta users via its content moderation system. Housed within Meta, the UA would guarantee that users had a more meaningful role in every part of content moderation\u2014from the development and amendment of Community Standards to the application and adjudication of those standards.<\/p>\n

The UA will work on behalf of users to hold Meta accountable, to advocate on behalf of their interests, and to represent them in formal proceedings involving Meta, the Oversight Board (OB), and other stakeholders. Meta has rightfully celebrated its prior efforts to involve users in its content moderation system[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u2014the UA is simply a deliberate and permanent means of continuing those efforts. As Meta expands its user base, refines its content moderation system, and creates new platforms, the UA will become even more valuable to Meta\u2019s efforts to comply with human rights norms and law.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE UA AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Meta has embraced a human rights framework for structuring and evaluating its content moderation decisions.[6]<\/sup><\/a> Fulfillment of Meta\u2019s human rights responsibilities requires the creation of a means for users to exercise their right to petition, without which freedom of expression cannot fully be realized.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The right to petition constitutes a fundamental right under human rights law.[8]<\/sup><\/a> An open procedure for individuals or groups alleging a violation of their rights or the rights of those they represent is an \u201cessential, even irreducible, means of giving effect\u201d to the protections set forth under human rights law.[9]<\/sup><\/a> In short, for Meta to protect the rights of its users, it must provide an \u201copportunity to demand that the right[s] be protected.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a> The UA would provide such an opportunity.<\/p>\n

By creating this opportunity, Meta can set a meaningful precedent for other platforms. Though some platforms tout their role as public spheres, the rule-making processes allow a staggering small role for the public. This discrepancy will become all the more apparent as platforms continue to play a larger role in communal discourse.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

UA POWERS<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Though Meta currently affords users who allege an improper decision; to remove content or leave that content up, the opportunity to challenge such a decision, this mechanism falls short of the sort of opportunity necessary to enforce the human rights norms and laws at the heart of Meta\u2019s Community Standards.[11]<\/sup><\/a> This mechanism prohibits challenges by groups of affected users, prevents contestation of a specific Community Standard rather than a single post, and does not allow for proactive amendment of those standards in anticipation of crises and other events likely to increase the odds of violations.<\/p>\n

Given the size of Meta\u2019s user base, it is impossible for every challenge by a user or group of users to go through the entire content appeals process.[12]<\/sup><\/a> Meta has responded to this reality by attempting to prioritize cases for review by the OB based on the severity and virality of a post, and the likelihood of post violating Meta\u2019s Community Standards.[13]<\/sup><\/a> Though perhaps unintentionally and in a way that would mirror the decisions of users, Meta has usurped the ability of users to signal their own priorities with respect to the enforcement and content of Meta\u2019s Community Standards.<\/p>\n

The UA will ensure users have a meaningful right to petition by overseeing mechanisms for users to identify Community Standards in need of reform, to request certain classes of cases receive OB review, and to ensure their values and preferences are represented in formal proceedings involving Meta, the OB, and other stakeholders.<\/p>\n

The following is a list of potential UA powers. The grant of even a few of these powers to a UA would serve as a meaningful improvement on the status quo. Stakeholders are encouraged to debate these powers and offer suggestions of their own.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/h4>\n

Accountability<\/h4>\n

The UA can further the rights of users by performing the following accountability actions:<\/p>\n