Arguing amid platform justice and informal governmental requests
What is it about?
Meta's Oversight Board was first introduced as a "Supreme Court" of Facebook, and commentators note its borrowing and embedding of the argumentative frameworks and expectations of human rights bodies. I analyze the argumentative patterns and genres of a decision concerning informal governmental requests for takedown, requiring a delicate balancing of freedom of expression and safety, as well as different types of regulations and law. Is this a novel site of decisionmaking in the public sphere? I argue so, upon argumentation theory, legal argumentation theory, and interlegality.
Why is it important?
The contextual pragmatics of adjudication are an interdisciplinary field which can illuminate the decisions of new types of actors, such as Meta's Oversight Board and, potentially, future decisionmakers in digitalized societies. The challenges include uncertain boundaries between law and non-law, public authorities and private regulators, compliance and responsibilities, always beyond one single frame of reference. The UK drill music decision is an illuminating example of the interface among these offline and online participants.