Meta’s manipulated media policy has been deemed “incoherent” and lacking in justification by the company’s Oversight Board. The board’s decision, issued on Monday, stated that the policy places too much emphasis on whether a video was altered through artificial intelligence (AI), rather than considering the potential harm it could cause. This article will explore the board’s findings and recommendations for changes to Meta’s policy.
In the case under review, the Oversight Board upheld Meta’s decision to allow an altered video of President Joe Biden to circulate on the platform. The video, which used real footage of Biden from October 2022, was edited to make it appear as though he inappropriately touched his adult granddaughter by adding a looping sequence. A later version of the video even referred to Biden as a “sick pedophile.”
The board agreed with Meta’s interpretation that the video did not violate the manipulated media policy because it did not make it seem like Biden said something he didn’t. The policy, in its current form, only applies to videos created with AI and does not explicitly address misleading looping or more basic editing techniques. The board acknowledged that the average user would likely recognize the video as altered due to the obvious loop edit.
However, despite upholding Meta’s decision in this case, the Oversight Board expressed concerns about the overall coherence and clarity of the manipulated media policy. The board argued that the policy should focus on the potential harm caused by edited video or audio, regardless of whether it is based on someone’s words. In their view, the logic of distinguishing between AI-altered content and non-AI-altered content is unconvincing.
The Oversight Board recommended significant changes to Meta’s manipulated media policy, particularly in light of the upcoming elections in 2024. They called for the policy to cover cases where video or audio is edited to make it appear as though someone did something they didn’t, even if it is not based on their words. The board also emphasized the need for a clear justification and specification of the harms that the policy aims to prevent.
Furthermore, the board suggested that Meta should reconsider its decision-making process based on how a post was edited, whether through AI or simpler editing techniques. They argued that non-AI-altered content can be just as misleading as AI-altered content. However, this does not necessarily mean that Meta should remove all altered posts. The board proposed that less restrictive measures, such as applying labels to notify users of significant edits, could be more suitable in most cases.
The Role of the Oversight Board
The Oversight Board was established by Meta to review content moderation decisions and provide binding judgments on appealed cases. Additionally, the board has the authority to make policy recommendations that Meta can choose to implement. The recommendations made by the board in this case highlight areas where they believe Meta’s manipulated media policy can be improved.
A spokesperson for Meta confirmed that the company is currently reviewing the recommendations put forth by the Oversight Board. They also stated that Meta will respond publicly within the required 60-day timeframe, as outlined by the bylaws.
The Oversight Board’s assessment of Meta’s manipulated media policy raises important questions about the clarity and effectiveness of the current rules. The board’s suggestions for changes, including expanding the policy’s scope and providing clearer justifications, aim to address the potential harms of altered content. As Meta reviews these recommendations, it has an opportunity to refine its policy and enhance its approach to addressing manipulated media on the platform. This ongoing dialogue between the Oversight Board and Meta plays a crucial role in shaping the future of content moderation practices on social media platforms.
Leave a Reply