Tech Talk: Facebook Oversight Board — Talking Tech W/ Caitlin Vogus and Emma Llansó
We have another exciting show for you this week!<br><br>Earlier this month, the Facebook Oversight Board affirmed Facebook’s January 7, 2021 decision to restrict the ability of then-President Donald Trump to post content on his Facebook and Instagram accounts. The Board’s decision raised a number of important questions, but left the big one unanswered. Will former President Trump be allowed back on these platforms?<br><br>CDT's Free Expression Team, Emma Llansó and Caitlin Vogus will breakdown this decision and discuss what happens next.<br><br>More on our host, Jamal https://bit.ly/cdtjamal<br><br>Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.
Top Keywords
- facebook 0.036
- oversight board 0.032
- oversight 0.024
- board 0.022
- trump 0.020
- trump account 0.013
- content 0.011
- decision 0.011
- newsworthiness 0.010
- moderation 0.010
- violence 0.009
- newsworthiness exception 0.009
Transcript
Welcome to Tech Talk. Bye.
CT. Welcome to CDT's Tech Talk, where we dish on tech and Internet policy while also explaining what these policies mean to our daily lives. I'm Jamal Magdi, and it's time to talk tech. Earlier this month, the Facebook Oversight Board affirmed Facebook's 01/07/2021 decision to restrict the ability of then president Donald Trump to post content on his Facebook and Instagram accounts. The board's decision raised a number of important questions, but left the big one unanswered. Will former president Trump be allowed back on these platforms? Here to break down the decision is CDTs three expression team and Alonzo and Caitlin Vogus. Caitlin and Emma, welcome to the show, and thank you so much for joining us. Thanks, Jamal. It's great to be back.
Thanks for having us, Jamal.
Of course. And and, Caitlin, I just wanna give you a very special welcome. I realized this is your first time at Tech Talk. So welcome to CDT, and welcome to Tech Talk.
Thanks. Can't wait to dive in.
So let's jump right into it. Last week, the Oversight Board handed down its decision regarding Trump's deplatforming. Can you guys explain this decision and and and what this what this decision means?
Sure. So the big news from this decision is that it's not really the final decision, at least as far as a final determination about what happens to former president Trump's account on Facebook. Facebook had asked the oversight board to, to weigh in on the indefinite suspension that Facebook issued of, former president Trump's account, and and the board did. They offered a lot of commentary and discussion about, a lot of the different underlying issues in the case. But one of the big pieces of the decision was that they really concluded when Facebook applied an indefinite suspension to Trump's account, Facebook was going kind of off script. They didn't have actually a previously defined policy about indefinite suspensions that president Trump or anyone else could have expected to be applied to their, their content. So one of the things that the Oversight Board did is say, Facebook, it's on you. You have to make this decision. It's it's not for the Facebook Oversight Board to decide. It is for Facebook looking at its policies, including any updated or amended policies about incitement or, glorification of violence or or anything else. Facebook has to be the one to make the call. Does Trump come back to the account or not? So that was, I think, not necessarily expected. A lot of folks were sort of looking at this oversight board decision as this will be the thing that that resolves this question once and for all. Unfortunately, the question still remains with us and so is probably gonna be talked about quite a lot.
So so you actually hit on a point. You said the question still remains. So what's next? What what happens now?
So, basically, the Facebook oversight board gave Facebook about six months to make a final determination about what happens to president Trump's account. The oversight board in its decision listed a number of different kinds of improvements and clarifications that Facebook could make to its policies, including specifying whether there is such thing as an indefinite suspension, but really pushing Facebook to actually make a clear decision. Is there a temporary but time limited suspension of Trump's account, or is there, in fact, a permanent ban of his account? Or is he allowed to come back, you know, fully to the account, and continue posting, the way any other user might? So there's it's it's really the ball is in Facebook's court now, but within six months from from the oversight board's decision, Facebook is supposed to have made a a final ruling and really kind of explained both the underlying policies that it's applying and this final determination to what happens to Trump's account.
Wow. So it sounds like they just gave Facebook a little more time to to maybe do some things that that should have been done a while ago.
Yeah. I think it's it's was really interesting to see this kind of through line from previous decisions from the Facebook oversight board. Most of their, decisions and and commentary and recommendations back to Facebook have focused on this issue of a lack of clarity of Facebook's policies. It seemed pretty clear at the time that Trump's account was suspended that I wasn't exactly clear what the rationale was for that suspension, which policies were applied, where this indefinite suspension idea came from. So so it I wasn't surprised to see more of that discussion in this decision about the lack of clarity of Facebook's policies. But I think the the oversight board was basically trying to thread a needle of affirming the decision in general to suspend Trump's account at a time where there was, such a risk of incitement to violence, in The United States, but still continuing to hammer home this message that, Facebook's policies just have a a lot of vagueness in them.
So when you mentioned vagueness, one thing stands out that if, you know, any normal user posted the same content that former president Donald Trump did, it would be immediately removed. What did the board's decision tell us about how Facebook treats high profile accounts generally?
The Oversight Board's decision, Jamal, hit on two big issues really when it came to high profile accounts, and those are the newsworthiness exception and then,
profile accounts, and those are the newsworthiness exception and then also the cross check system as well. So with the newsworthiness exception, that's a policy that Facebook uses to leave up certain content that's newsworthy even if the content technically violates Facebook's community standards. And that exception has been in place since 2016, but it was only in 2020 that Facebook said that it would start labeling content that it's leaving up under the newsworthiness exception so users would actually know when the exception applies. And one of the interesting things in this case is that the Facebook, that Facebook told the oversight board that it didn't apply the newsworthiness exception here. And in fact, it had never applied the newsworthiness exception to Donald Trump's posts on Facebook or Instagram. And that's particularly noteworthy, I think, because when it first announced the exception, it came under a lot of criticism because people thought that it was coming up with this exception in order to justify leaving content by Trump up on the platform even if it violates Facebook's rules. So it's really interesting and noteworthy that Facebook told the oversight board that it's never applied the newsworthiness exception to Trump's posts.
So what sorry.
No. Go ahead.
Oh, I was just gonna ask, with that, did the oversight board say how Facebook should treat high profile accounts in the future? Like, did they give any guidance back to Facebook?
Yes. So the oversight board said, generally, the same rules should apply to all users, and this gets into something around the other issue that the oversight board talked about with respect to high profile users, which is Facebook's cross check system. So this is a system that gives a second layer of review to content moderation decisions on high profile accounts. So for certain accounts, Facebook said they have this cross check system where moderators might flag content as violating Facebook standards, but then Facebook will give it a second look to see, does it actually violate its standards or not? And the oversight board said that even when you have the same rules that are applying to all users, when you apply different procedures, that can result in different outcomes. So Facebook needs to be really clear about how the cross check system applies and what accounts it's selecting to apply that system to and how it selects those accounts. And then it also said that Facebook needs to be really clear about the newsworthiness exception too and that it's caused a lot of confusion by having a lack of transparency about how the newsworthiness exception works and when it applies and when it doesn't. The oversight board said a couple other things about how Facebook should treat high profile accounts. It said, number one, that context really matters when assessing the probability and influence that a user's post could harm people. And that's especially true for highly influential users because their posts can be way more impactful and have a way broader reach than regular users. And that's something that CDT had actually emphasized in our comments to the oversight board about this case. And then the second thing is the oversight board said that Facebook needs to really quickly escalate content that has political speech from highly influ influential users, and it needs to have specialized staff who are familiar with the context, with the politics, and the language being used in order to assess that content and to see if it violates Facebook standards. And this is something else that CDT also recommended when we made our comments to the oversight board too. So what does the oversight
board's decision tell us about Facebook's content moderation practices for regular users, for for you and I?
Yeah. It's a really good question, Jamal, because one of the one of the themes that came out in a lot of the different comments, and commentary around this case from all different NGOs, and civil society groups, people really thinking hard about this case is that it does seem like there's something of a double standard for, people like Trump on the the service and for everybody else. And a lot of folks were saying, you know, don't have a double standard. Don't treat these users differently. Almost sort of get rid of your newsworthiness exception. Don't give Trump's content a pass if it violates the standards on Facebook. You know, personally, I think there's a lot of benefit to having something like a newsworthiness policy because there is something to that argument that people need to see what their political leaders or other high profile figures are saying and the fact that a political figure is saying something that might also violate, services policies against hate speech or harassment, or fraud or whatever it might be, is actually a really important piece of the the kind of public conversation. So I have probably a little bit more, more faith in the the utility of a newsworthiness exception. But on the flip side, CDT was also arguing alongside many others that there is something of a a double standard or at least a a different consideration you have to apply to the kinds of, speech that Caitlin was just talking about from high profile users around incitement to violence. You know, it's kind of a recognized in international human rights law that the role of a speaker is really important in, in determining whether their speech is actually likely to incite violence. And so it's another place where as much as it feels kind of fair and equitable and, like, the right decision to say the same standard applies flatly across all users no matter who they are, there are actually some really important cases where that might not quite be true. What we saw in this decision and the kind of information that we got out from Facebook in the course of them providing commentary to the oversight board for its decision is that through this cross check process, well, it's not really clear what's going on. So, you know, as Caitlin mentioned, they Facebook kind of revealed that it has this process where it gives a second look to high profile individuals' accounts when they get flagged up for moderation. But some of the the numbers that were revealed were for for Trump's account in particular were pretty startling. The Facebook said that it had taken down five of Trump's posts, including three in the last year, but it that it had reviewed a further 20 of his posts, that had gotten initially flagged either by their automated content moderation systems or by human reviewers, you know, looking at content that maybe a user had flagged and reported into Facebook. In 20 cases, the initial frontline moderation decision was this content should come down, but then through the cross check system, the decision was made that, no. No. President Trump's content should stay up. It's really not clear how that decision was made. You know, as as Caitlin mentioned earlier, Facebook said that it has never applied its newsworthiness policy to Trump's content. So if it wasn't a newsworthiness exception that was getting brought to bear on Trump's post, it really leaves this question hanging, why did so many of those decisions get reversed? It could be that there's a big problem with the sort of frontline moderation decisions that what Trump had figured out how to do was really skirt the line of things that don't violate Facebook's policies but might appear to to its machine learning classifiers or to, you know, the people doing the the initial moderation review. But to me, it points to a really big question about just how often do these kinds of errors happen in reviewing other people's content. Right? Was the fact that it was Trump the really deciding factor in reversing 80% of these decisions about his content? Or are these kinds of errors that were happening in reviewing Trump's content the same sorts of errors that are happening throughout Facebook systems when they look at,
the content that's posted by everyday users like you or me. And just to add on to that, I mean, this issue about errors in content moderation is all the more pressing right now because Facebook and other social media companies have said that they have increased their reliance on automation to make content moderation decisions during the COVID nineteen pandemic because they had to send so much of their human workforce home. And we know that when companies turn more to automation to make these decisions, the error rate goes up. And Facebook has said as much itself as well. So when Emma talks about this potential error rate that the cross check system is revealing and how it could be even greater for regular users, that's exacerbated
now during the COVID nineteen pandemic. Yeah. I was just gonna ask about that. It seems like I'm I'm wondering if Facebook just has the manpower, you know, to really look at not only just posts that, you know, individuals that are that are famous or or or, you know, high profile individuals, post, but just individuals like you and I who get taken down. You know, that I I feel like that would take a lot of manpower, but also needs to be accurate. Right? That machines
the accuracy rate is is low. Yeah. And it can really depend on the type of automation that you're using, the type of decision that you're trying to make. It it can be easy to forget that lots of different online services use automation to do things like blocking spam at enormous volumes every day. And that on, you know, by and large, a lot of spam mitigation measures are really pretty good. And you you get the emails you want and you don't see the emails you don't want, you know, accounts that are created just to, you know, appear and immediately blast out 10,000 copies of the same message get shut down very quickly so that your, you know, your news feed or your comments, on your page don't get just filled up with with utter nonsense. But for things like figuring out if a statement from a particular person is likely to incite violence or whether a comment that uses a word that can be a slur is being said as hate speech or just a joke between friends, that kind of decision is close to impossible for a machine learning classifier to to make consistently and accurately in a way that is actually satisfactory to everybody involved. So human review in content moderation is hugely important. Facebook has probably the biggest army of content moderators, that it employs of any service going. I think its numbers are something like 35,000 people employed in either in frontline moderation or in some aspect of, safety and security operations across the platform. So, you know, they they have a lot of personnel, but as Caitlin was pointing out, you know, certainly over the past year, at different points, nearly all of those people were were not at the office or at their their workstations working. They they had been sent home for their, their health. But as Facebook is kind of bringing people back to work or figuring out ways to enable people to do the the sensitive task of content moderation remotely, you know, there there's still probably nowhere nearly enough people employed in doing this job to give a full human review of every decision that is being made. Facebook makes millions and millions of content moderation decisions every single day, and a lot of times people would like to appeal those decisions. Appeals may not even be available, depending on, you know, whether the, whether there's enough workforce to to actually cover those sorts of decisions. So the short answer is, there there may not be enough people on Earth to get everyone a full human review and appeal of every content moderation decision made on a social media platform, and that's that's a really difficult problem to solve. Right? That's what the right answer is there is is a really interesting question. CDT has always really been emphasizing that appeals are crucial parts of content moderation systems and that if especially if an automated decision has been made to take down someone's content or to block their account, that person should be able to appeal to a human to consider whether the the automated system has made an error. We hear a lot back from from different companies that, well, sometimes our automated systems are more accurate, you know, at scale than our human reviewers, which still doesn't solve the problem because the automated systems can make errors and can make different kinds of errors than humans might. So I think, you know, the ideal is that you have an integrated system that involves humans, overseeing the the automated decisions. But when we're talking about moderation at scale, it's very, very hard to set up a system that kind of adequately operates in a way that that satisfies everyone.
So switching gears a bit, you you talked earlier about the international human rights laws that and and we know the oversight board applied these human rights laws to analyze Facebook app Facebook's application of its dangerous individuals and organizations policy to Trump's account. What what did this analysis get right, and and what did it leave out? Yeah. So here, Facebook relied on its dangerous individuals and organizations
policy as its basis for justifying its action against Trump's account. And I think that's interesting because there was so much discussion about whether Trump's posts incited violence and whether they violated Facebook's specific standard around incitement to violence. And Facebook really said, hey. Hey. You know what? We're not even gonna rely on that standard. We're going to instead rely on this other policy, the dangerous individuals and organizations policy, which is a a standard that prohibits users from praising or supporting terrorism or hate crimes or other violating events or from praising individuals who have engaged in acts of organized violence. And Facebook had declared the January 6 riot at the Capitol a violating event, and so they said that Trump's posts violated this policy against praising or supporting individuals engaged in organized violence. The oversight board looked at that policy and how Facebook applied it, and they applied international human rights standards to look at whether the policy is clear and accessible, whether it's designed for a legitimate aim, and also whether the sanction that Facebook imposed was necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm. And as part of its analysis to do this, the oversight board actually applied the rabbit plan of action, which is a six part test that, talks about whether, and how you determine the harmful impact of speech. And I think it's, very important that the oversight board acknowledged this test and applied it here. It's something that CDT had urged it to look at when considering the potential impact that Trump's post could have. And, specifically, as part of that test, you know, you would consider a variety of factors. But, again, one of the things you look at is the status of the speaker in determining whether that speaker status would actually increase the risk of harm. And here, as we talked about a little bit earlier, the oversight board recognized that because of Trump's kind of highly influential status, he there was a greater risk of of harm from the post that he was making on January 6. So, basically, the oversight board looked at all these factors and concluded that Trump's posts violated the, dangerous individuals and organizations policy clearly, that the policy was designed for a legitimate aim of preventing harm, and that Facebook's initial response, at least to bar him from the site, was necessary and proportionate. Although, as Emma explained earlier, they said that the indefinite sanction that Facebook imposed would not be necessary and proportionate and that Facebook had to go back and reexamine that and consider imposing a time time limited bar on Trump's access to the platform.
Yeah. And as far as what the what the oversight board didn't really fully grapple with, as far as international human rights standards go, This whole question of the the dangerous organizations policy that Caitlin was discussing and in particular, the fact that Trump's account was suspended under a violation of what what is basically the glorification of violence element of the dangerous organization's policy, that raises a lot of flags under international human rights standards, and this is something that the oversight board has pointed out in, in previous decisions. So to back up a little bit, this whole concept of glorification, the idea that on the one hand, you might be somebody who is engaging in terrorist acts, which are clearly illegal, or trying to incite people to engage in terrorist acts, which is also typically illegal. That's recognized as a a kind of speech that is prohibited by law, including, you know, in The United States. Glorification is a little bit of a a grayer area because it it ends up boiling down into things like supporting or praising or speaking positively about the fact that someone else engaged in terroristic activity or organized violence. And we've seen it play out on, both in a lot of different kind of legal systems around the world, but also on different social media sites where it can get really difficult if somebody is referring to, in general, the head of a political party who twenty five years ago may have engaged in some terrorist violence, and that person is just sort of online is is expressing some support for the party, that person, a figurehead. You know, is that really an endorsement of terroristic violence that that person once engaged in, or is it trying to express a, a bigger picture kind of political position, or political view? It can get really hard to kind of draw some of those lines. And we've seen a lot of cases of, you know, pretty innocuous comments and statements or, comedy or satire getting swept up in this idea of, oh, you're you're speaking approvingly of terrorist violence or you're speaking approvingly of, some organized violence or crime that has happened. So the the Facebook policy, isn't isn't totally clear, and I think one way that you can see that the policy wasn't clear was by looking at what the decision says that the sort of the brief on behalf of Trump was was arguing. So, an organization filed a brief on behalf of Trump that basically looked entirely at first amendment legal standards, and and focused entirely on the idea that Trump's account had been taken down because he was directly inciting violence. And they sort of applied the the first amendment legal standards around incitement and said there's no way his statements could could meet that. And and it really seemed like the Trump side had totally missed the point that it wasn't actually direct incitement to violence that was the rationale Facebook was giving for taking his account down. But instead, it was the fact that he was saying things like, we love you, we support you to the people at the Capitol who were engaged in organized violence. And that that was that's a meaningful difference that that those are different kinds of speech acts to to praise and support people committing violence, versus to try to continue to incite it. And so it all kind of ends up in a big mess understanding what exactly was it that was sort of wrong or policy violating of what Trump said. So the the oversight board kind of gets at some of this, ultimately sort of backs up and says the overall rationale that whatever it was that Trump was saying on Facebook was likely to incite further violence was was a clear enough justification to suspend his account. But it it didn't really dig deeply into this question of how should Facebook frame a more clear explanation of what kinds of glorification or support or praise of people engaged in violence is okay or not okay on their service.
So I want us to switch gears a little bit. I want us to move a little bit away from the substance of the oversight board's decision and talk a little bit about what the decision tells us about the role of the oversight board and, specifically, what role it plays in Facebook's content moderation process and the type of oversight it can provide.
Sure. Yeah. So I think one of the big takeaways about the the decision is the Facebook oversight board is continuing to try to assert its independence from Facebook. They've they've done this in a couple of previous cases really trying to sort of sketch out what are the decisions that the oversight board gets to make and what are the things that sort of Facebook has to do in response. So previously, the the oversight board has, you know, overruled Facebook on on what cases it can hear. There was a a case that had come before the board, in previous rounds where Facebook tried to sort of retract the case and say, oh, well, we've already restored that content so you don't need to look at the underlying issue. And the board pushed back on that and said, no. You can't just take cases out of our hands. We want to look at the underlying issue and we're going to. In this case, the board was really trying to, I think, set out the parameters of what kinds of decisions from Facebook it will review. There's a lot of discussion about, you know, is Facebook just sort of punting the really difficult question of should Trump have an account on Facebook over to the oversight board, you know, saying you guys take this one. Facebook doesn't wanna have to make that call and come down very clearly and definitively on it. But the oversight board punted it right back, and they said that that was something that was Facebook's responsibility to decide, and then the oversight board could review whether that decision was made, you know, according to Facebook's policies in a clear and foreseeable way, but that the oversight board was not there to basically be a fig leaf for, for Facebook or to to make the hard call
that Facebook sort of declined to make. Yeah. And I think the other important aspect of the board's decision are those policy recommendations that it made. So not just you know, the decision is not just limited to what should happen with Donald Trump's account, but it also includes policy recommendations about aspects of Facebook's content moderation systems and and how those should be improved. Now those policy recommendations aren't binding on Facebook the way that the oversight board's decision about Trump's account specifically is binding. So Facebook is not required to follow the policy recommendations. It doesn't have to implement them. It has committed itself to publicly responding to the policy recommendations that the board makes. So Facebook will, we expect, follow through on that commitment and make a public response. I think that would be pretty interesting for two of the recommendations in particular, one of which was a recommendation that Facebook actually investigate its own role in, potentially contributing to a narrative about electoral fraud that then culminated in the January. The oversight board actually asked Facebook as part of the case if it had done any sort of investigation along those lines, and Facebook declined to answer that question. So that'll be interesting to see how Facebook responds to that recommendation. And then another broader recommendation where the oversight board recommended that Facebook come up with a policy to deal with novel or emergency situations, and a process for how it's gonna handle kind of the unexpected in the future. And, again, I think it'll be pretty fascinating to see what Facebook says in response if that's something they're willing to do. And if if that's something they've already thought about doing and have kind of guidelines in place around that. But one thing the oversight board needs to keep an eye on is how Facebook responds and and what it says. And if you look back at the first tranche of responses from Facebook in response to the first set of decisions from the oversight board, you can see with a careful analysis that Facebook hasn't always had, you know, a 100% stellar record in how it's responded. It has sometimes said that it's implementing certain policy recommendations or it's already implemented certain policy recommendations by the board. But if you dig a little bit deeper beneath the surface, you'll see that the recommendations haven't quite fully been implemented yet or been implemented in the same way that the board recommended. So the board needs to be vigilant about that. And I think, really, the only tool it has in its toolbox to respond, and it's a powerful tool, is transparency and to shed more light on what Facebook is doing when it responds to its fee when it responds to the board's policy recommendations. So, for example, the board could actually review Facebook's responses and provide its own comment on those responses publicly and provide public periodic updates about whether and how Facebook is actually implementing the board's recommendations. And the board could also, for example, call on Facebook to explain itself if the company says it's going to implement a recommendation, but doesn't actually do it. So I I think those are all important things that the board is still, figuring out how to how to deal with the with the response to its recommendations and how to really ensure that even though those recommendations aren't binding on Facebook, they still have some teeth and some way to hold Facebook accountable if it is not actually implementing the recommendations that it says it's going to.
And that actually leads me to my next question. You know, since it's not it's not technically binding, how important is this decision? It was the decision. You know, what does this tell us about the ongoing debates around social media content moderation
or the regulatory options that legislators around the world are considering? What I I I guess, what's the bigger picture here? Yeah. It's it's a really good question, Jamal, because there's a lot of attention on this particular case, you know, not in the least because it is the former US president, and there's a lot of scrutiny just on whether and how Trump is using social media, day in and day out. But in the big picture, this is, I think, an interesting experiment that Facebook and the Facebook oversight board are engaged in of seeing what does it really look like to have a a third party like the oversight board examine in a really granular level of detail, specific content moderation decisions that a company like Facebook makes and apply international human rights standards to those decisions. I think it's a really useful exercise. I think we're getting in the the actual decisions that are written by the board and and shared out into the public. We're getting a lot of really good and thoughtful analysis applying international human rights standards, to questions of hate speech or bans on nudity on social media, or incitement of violence or all of these different kinds of questions. Really useful stuff and exactly the kind of things that policymakers or advocates or companies all need to be thinking about when we talk about wanting content moderation to work better and to do a better job of protecting people's human rights. But at the end of the day, the oversight board is going to see, you know, maybe several dozen cases in a year. It's not the kind of court of last resort that will solve the problems of millions of Facebook users. It will issue some really interesting opinions. And as Caitlin was saying, if Facebook takes up some of the recommendations, that may end up having a bigger impact for kind of more Facebook users than the people whose cases are right before the board on any given day. But it's not the the oversight board is not, like, the final answer to all problems in content moderation. And it's also not really clear what what message Congress would take away from all of this because, at least in The US, Congress is is so split on what they want from companies like Facebook anyway. Half of Congress thinks that they never should have taken down Trump's account, and the other half is like, what took you so long? So, so I'm not sure that there's really a clear message or a clear next step for for congress following this decision. Over in Europe, the European Commission has put out the draft digital services act, which is really a comprehensive overhaul of Europe's intermediary liability law and would introduce, kind of systemic oversight and review of how companies like Facebook, but also much smaller companies do things like content moderation. So I think the the sorts of lessons and ideas and recommendations that the oversight board is churning out in its decisions are really relevant to some of these more in-depth and sophisticated legislative conversations, but, you know, it's it's not going to be the the one solution to all of these different questions.
So no magic wand just yet?
We still don't have a magic wand to solve content moderation. No.
Well, Caitlin and Emma, it's truly been a pleasure having you both here today. I think this is something we're gonna have to have you guys back on later in the year, well, in the next six months to to hopefully discuss the the next, the next decision that the oversight board, brings down. But thank you both for for being here. We really appreciate your time.
Oh, thanks so much for having us. Thank you, Jamal.
For more information on CDT's free expression work, please visit us at cdt.org and on LinkedIn and Twitter at send them tech. I'm Jamal Magby. Thank you so much for talking tech.
