Facebook says it can’t keep pace with its own Oversight Board

"We believe the current design of the recommendation process may not be the best way to bring about the long-term, structural changes the board is pushing us to undertake."

The facebook logo displayed on a smartphone screen, in front of a backdrop of the Facebook logo.

Facebook is drowning in recommendations from its Oversight Board.

Photo illustration: Igor Golovniov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Depending on who you ask, Facebook's Oversight Board is either a massive PR stunt to deflect blame away from the company or an ambitious and thoughtful experiment in social media governance. Whatever it is, it's apparently becoming untenable for Facebook.

In a report published Tuesday, Facebook said it's struggling to keep up with the pace of recommendations being dished out by the board and that it needs to come up with a better way to communicate with the board that doesn't entail writing dueling, multi-page missives.

"We believe the current design of the recommendation process may not be the best way to bring about the long-term, structural changes the board is pushing us to undertake," the report reads.

The board has issued 78 recommendations since January. Under its agreement with the board, Facebook is supposed to respond to each of those recommendations, which are non-binding, within 30 days. But Facebook hasn't made substantive progress on lots of those recommendations, in part because, the company said, that 30-day deadline is too tight.

"On average, our teams assess and respond to anywhere from 5 to 35 recommendations at any one point in time," the report reads. "The majority of these recommendations require over a dozen people to assess feasibility, which we cannot easily complete in 30 days."

Facebook's current product "roadmapping" approach involves quantitative and qualitative analysis and "requires making trade-offs and prioritizing among multiple, competing initiatives," the report said. But that process only happens every six months, meaning some of the board's recommendations are currently being considered on a slower timeline.

Out of the 69 recommendations the board made during the past two quarters of this year (which includes nine that carried over from the first quarter), Facebook has fully implemented just 12 of them. Another 23 recommendations are in progress, and the company is still assessing the feasibility of 17 recommendations.

The belabored, deliberative process Facebook goes through before making changes to its products has been on display recently in light of whistleblower Frances Haugen's disclosures to Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Those documents show in no uncertain terms how extensively Facebook scrutinizes any potential changes to its products, even in the face of evidence that its products are actively causing harm, and is often too slow to act on the findings of all that research.

In addition to more time, Facebook said it also needs a better way to communicate with the board. The company has recently held a series of question and answer sessions with the board, which it says were more productive. "The current format of knowledge sharing — with largely formalized, written exchanges — is not well suited to answering the board's questions about the complexities of our systems or content moderation at scale," the report reads.

Facebook said it's working with an organization called Business for Social Responsibility on a report "to study and explore options for our ongoing interactions with the board," and expects to publish their findings next year.

It's unclear how much say the board will have in dictating how — and how quickly — Facebook responds to its recommendations going forward. Currently, the board's bylaws stipulate that Facebook must respond to its recommendations within 30 days. In a statement, a spokesperson for the Oversight Board told Protocol, "We're closely monitoring how the company responds to our recommendations, and will continue to publicly report on how we view Meta's progress in implementing these." (Facebook rebranded to Meta last month).

On a call with reporters Tuesday, Facebook's head of Global Policy Management, Monika Bickert, declined to offer additional details about what specific changes the company is seeking and whether the board will have to sign off on those changes. "We're trying to get faster in the way we consider those requests," Bickert said. "Those recommendations are never going to be something we can just implement or immediately respond to without taking that considered approach."

This story has been updated to include the board's statement.


Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).


White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.


Microsoft’s new chief partner officer: 'Customers need help'

The new Microsoft Cloud Partner Program forces new certification requirements on the hundreds of thousands of partners that sell and support its products and services. Nicole Dezen says those changes now give customers “total clarity” into which ones are best suited to meet their cloud needs.

Nicole Dezen, Microsoft's chief partner officer, talked with Protocol last week about the company's announcement.

Photo: Microsoft

As Microsoft launches the biggest overhaul of its partner program today since 2010, its new chief partner officer says the changes will help enterprises and other customers more easily identify qualified partners that are the right fit to help with their cloud needs.

“All of our priorities, all of our design principles, are built with the customer in mind,” Nicole Dezen, Microsoft’s chief partner officer and corporate vice president of global partner solutions, told Protocol in an exclusive interview, her first since being appointed in July.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Latest Stories