After seeking input from the Oversight Board, Meta released its comprehensive policy recommendations on cross-checking laws more than a year ago.
The Board determined that the program’s particular content filtering process for high-profile users places the company’s revenue above user rights, according to a report.
According to the Board, “In our review, we uncovered multiple flaws in Meta’s cross-check tool.”
Although Meta has assured the Board that cross-checking will help the company fulfill its human rights obligations, they have discovered that the program appears to be more specifically designed to address business needs.
The complaint is comparable to that made last year by whistleblower Frances Haugen, who revealed frightening facts on cross-checking and how Meta “chooses profits before safety.”
Cross-check A Facebook and Instagram internal feature called Program Cross-check, or “xcheck,” shields well-known users from the sites’ automatic content moderation systems.
It serves as a “second layer of review,” according to Meta, and helps guard against postings being unintentionally removed.
According to Haugen’s disclosures, the programme has millions of accounts covered and has permitted billions of views on postings that otherwise would have been deleted.
In relation to the system, which has been at the center of how the Oversight Board has handled the suspension of former President Donald Trump, Meta has been accused of not being “fully forthcoming.”
The policy advisory opinion (PAO) of the Oversight Board on the program offers the most thorough analysis of Meta’s evolving cross-check regulations.
The Board goes into great detail about its two distinct cross-check processes: General Secondary Review (GSR), a cutting-edge system that uses a classifier to instantly flag specific types of posts across its platform for additional review, and Early Response Secondary Review (ERSR), for select high-profile users as determined by Meta.
In 2021, GSR—which can be used to analyze data from any Facebook or Instagram user—was introduced as a “response to criticism” related to Haugen’s claims in the Facebook Papers.