Facebook, YouTube and TikTok users in Europe will have a forum to challenge decisions about social media content

LONDON (AP) — Social media users in the European Union will soon have a new forum to challenge platforms’ decisions to remove posts and videos for violating their rules or to remove others who may violate those rules.

An “out-of-court dispute resolution body” called Appeals Center Europe announced Tuesday that it has been certified by Irish regulators to act as an arbitrator in content moderation disputes in the 27-nation EU, starting with cases involving Facebook, YouTube and Concern TikTok.

The center is similar to Meta’s Oversight Board, a quasi-independent body created in 2020 that acts like a supreme court for sensitive decisions on content moderation issues on Facebook, Instagram and threads submitted by users around the world.

Under the EU’s digital framework, the Digital Services Act (DSA), technology companies and social media platforms are required to cooperate with dispute resolution bodies and comply with any decisions they make. EU officials in Brussels wanted to give EU citizens the opportunity to challenge decisions by Big Tech companies, balancing freedom of expression with the goal of curbing online risks.

The center will listen to appeals from users or groups in the EU on “everything from violence and incitement to hate speech to bullying and harassment,” said CEO Thomas Hughes.

“It could be anything from a case involving a head of state to a neighborly dispute,” Hughes said.

The Digital Services Act is a comprehensive set of rules that requires technology and social media companies operating in Europe to clean up their platforms under the threat of high fines.

The appeal center, based in Dublin, where many Silicon Valley companies have their European headquarters, will begin hearing user cases before the end of the year. The company is initially looking at Facebook, YouTube and TikTok users as it wanted to start with the largest platforms and plans to add more later.

Unlike the Oversight Board, which can cherry-pick the biggest and most important cases, the Center must decide on every case it receives. And decisions will not be publicly available, unlike the oversight board’s rulings, which are posted online.

The oversight board both issues binding decisions on individual cases, such as the decision in September on three separate posts containing the controversial Palestinian battle cry “From River to Sea,” and addresses broader policy issues with non-binding recommendations, such as guidance in July on the Updated meta guidelines on non-consensual deepfakes after reviewing a case involving deepfake intimate images of two women.

The story continues

The appeal center’s decisions, on the other hand, are not binding and are limited to whether content such as a post, photo or video violates the rules of the respective platform.

Hughes said the center would recruit staff from across the EU to handle up to tens of thousands of cases each year. Staff have expertise in specific regions, languages ​​and policy areas.

Beyond case-by-case decisions, data on the disputes will help regulators and researchers assess any “systemic risks” to social media users.

The Real Facebook Oversight Board, a group of civil rights leaders and technology experts critical of Meta and its oversight board, cautiously welcomed the new center.

“We don’t know much about the appeals center and how it will work, but enforcing moderation under the DSA promises that other approaches don’t,” said spokesman Ben Wyskida. While the DSA “wasn’t perfect…” it is still far superior to anything in the United States.”

Meta’s Oversight Board is providing seed capital of 15 million euros ($16.5 million), said Hughes, who was previously a director of the Oversight Board. He added that the two bodies will operate separately but will point in the same direction “on accountability and transparency of the platform, user rights” and the application of a human rights framework to online speech.

The appeal center will fund its ongoing operations by charging tech companies 95 euros for each case it hears, as well as a 5-euro fee from users who raise disputes. This “nominal” fee is intended to discourage people from “gaming or abusing” the system and will be refunded if a user wins, Hughes said.

Even though decisions are not binding, users will receive their money back if the center rules in favor of their disputes, regardless of whether the platform takes action or not.

There is a 90-day deadline for decisions, but in most cases they are made much quicker, he said.

___

Associated Press writer Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report.