Facebook is one of the largest and most widely used social media platforms in the world, with over 2.9 billion monthly active users as of the third quarter of 2022. With so many users comes a lot of content, some of which may be illegal, dangerous or inappropriate. This raises questions around the responsibilities and potential liability of Facebook administrators who monitor and moderate platform content.
The Role of Facebook Administrators
Facebook employs thousands of content moderators around the world who review posts, images, videos and other content that has been flagged as potentially violating platform policies. Their job is to determine if the content does indeed break Facebook rules and should be removed. This can include content that is sexually explicit, graphically violent, harassing, hateful or constitutes cyberbullying.
In addition to paid Facebook employees, the platform also relies on a network of volunteer administers in regions around the world to moderate local content and language. These admins are empowered to remove posts and take other actions to enforce Facebook’s rules.
Facebook provides training and guidance to help administrators identify and address policy-breaking content. However, with so much material flowing through Facebook daily, controversial gray areas inevitably emerge around what constitutes permissible versus prohibited content.
Potential Areas of Liability
There are several ways in which Facebook administrators could potentially face legal liability based on their content moderation actions or inaction:
- Failure to remove illicit/illegal content – If admins knowingly allow content like child pornography, terror propaganda, or threats of violence to remain on the platform, they could potentially face criminal charges or civil lawsuits, depending on the jurisdiction.
- Removing/blocking lawful content – If admins improperly censor or restrict content that is protected under free speech laws, they could face allegations of violating users’ rights.
- Selective enforcement – Applying content rules unevenly could raise claims of bias, discrimination or curtailing of speech based on political views or other improper considerations.
- Breach of contract – Facebook’s Terms of Service forbid certain types of content. Failure to remove posts that violate user agreements could constitute a breach of contract.
- Negligence – If content moderators fail to act on reports of illegal/dangerous activity that lead to harm, injured parties could potentially seek damages for negligence.
These types of claims have been raised in lawsuits against social networks, with varying degrees of success. Courts have typically been hesitant to impose liability without clear evidence of misconduct by administrators.
Lawsuits Against Facebook Admins
There have been a few notable lawsuits involving claims of legal liability against Facebook content moderators and administrators:
- In 2021, a former content moderator sued Facebook alleging PTSD from being exposed to graphic and objectionable content. While the case focused mainly on moderator working conditions, it also suggested Facebook had a duty to protect employees from trauma.
- In 2019, a Pakistani man sued Facebook for suspending his account, claiming the administrator who blocked him was biased against the man’s political beliefs. The case alleged a violation of the man’s free speech rights.
- In 2016, families of victims of Hamas terrorist attacks sued Facebook for failing to ban Hamas accounts that incited violence. A U.S. court rejected the suit, finding no evidence that Facebook knowingly supported terrorists.
- In 2015, a French court fined Facebook for violating French laws against Holocaust denial, after administrators declined to remove offensive content when notified. This demonstrates the consequences of non-compliance with local laws.
While none of these cases definitively established legal liability for Facebook administrators, they represent the types of claims that can arise based on moderation decisions and practices.
Shielding Administrators from Liability
Facebook and other social networks aim to shield their content moderators from liability through a few methods:
- Broad user terms – Facebook’s Terms of Service give the company wide discretion to remove any content deemed objectionable, limiting what users can claim as protected speech.
- Good faith requirement – Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act protects platforms from liability for good faith efforts to moderate content.
- International laws – Countries like the U.S. and U.K. provide stronger speech protections, while European nations impose more limits on extremist, racist, and historically revisionist messaging.
- Automated moderation – Facebook relies increasingly on AI to flag problematic posts, reducing human administrator discretion and potential bias.
However, as social media platforms take on an increasingly important role in public discourse and the spread of information, calls for accountability and transparency around content moderation continue to mount.
Limits on Administrator Liability
There are also substantial legal barriers that limit the liability risks faced by Facebook administrators and moderators:
- They act as agents of Facebook, not independent decision-makers, and claims generally target the company itself.
- International speech laws vary widely, making uniform policies essentially impossible.
- The sheer volume of content makes consistently strict moderation unrealistic.
- Facebook provides moderation guidance, training and automation to shield human error.
- Courts are wary of infringing on social media platforms’ content discretion and chilling free expression.
For these reasons, legal analysts say it would be very difficult to win a case targeting the actions or omissions of individual Facebook administrators, unless clear evidence showed they knowingly and intentionally violated laws or company policies.
The Path Forward
Content moderation on massive social platforms like Facebook presents a complex array of legal, ethical and practical challenges. There are reasonable arguments on all sides – from wanting stronger content policing to prevent harm, to fearing censorship and infringement of speech rights. There are also understandable concerns that uneven policy enforcement affects marginalized groups most negatively.
Tech companies are increasingly expected to strike a balance between allowing free expression, protecting users from legitimate harms, and avoiding selective biases. This may require compromises that will not satisfy all parties. It is a nuanced public policy issue with no perfect solution.
For Facebook, potential paths forward could include:
- Increased transparency around content rules, moderator guidelines, and policy enforcement metrics.
- Expanding appeals options for users who feel wrongfully censored.
- Pointing researchers to representative samples of moderated content to audit for biases.
- Proactive investment and training to understand cultural contexts behind flagged content.
- Hiring more moderators to reduce workload strains and improve accuracy.
Facebook administrators are in an enormously difficult position, making high-stakes decisions on millions of posts daily. They are sure to make mistakes or have lapses in judgment. However, holding individual moderators legally liable for everyday operations is neither fair nor pragmatic.
The more productive path is to push Facebook itself to continually improve processes and safeguards. With thoughtful solutions, progress can be made that enhances expression while protecting the most vulnerable.
Conclusion
Imposing legal liability on individual Facebook administrators for content moderation issues faces substantial hurdles and is unlikely to be a practical or fair solution. However, Facebook as a company should continue working to enhance transparency, reduce biases, and invest more resources into moderation as its societal responsibilities grow. This complex challenge requires realistic balances between free speech and protection from harm, with input from diverse voices. But holding individual moderators personally accountable for day-to-day decisions is neither legally sound nor the right approach. The focus instead should be on improving Facebook’s policies and processes to get better outcomes.