Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Helle-Thorning Schmidt was elected the first female prime minister of Denmark in 2011, holding her nation\u2019s highest office for four years, before later serving as chief executive of the charity Save the Children International.\u00a0Perhaps her most prominent public role today is as co-chair of Meta\u2019s Oversight Board, a body set up by the social media giant\u2019s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg that started working in 2020. It comprises a global group of journalists, academics and politicians that adjudicates on the most high-profile content moderation cases on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.Funded by a $280mn trust, the board has been cast as an independent, almost quasi-judicial body: a \u201csupreme court\u201d for online speech. It has dealt with some of the thorniest issues on Meta\u2019s platforms, such as upholding \u2014 with caveats \u2014 Donald Trump\u2019s suspension from Facebook. Last year, the board demanded Meta review policies around \u201cmanipulated media\u201d after its moderators refused to take down an edited video on Facebook that wrongfully described US President Joe Biden as a paedophile.Meta has given the board authority over a narrow set of issues, such as whether content should be reinstated or removed. On top of issuing decisions in cases, however, it can also make recommendations for policy changes.These limits have led to accusations that Meta is merely allowing limited self-regulation that staves off more serious intervention. Thorning-Schmidt has regularly criticised Meta\u2019s practices, while arguing the company has made substantive changes in response to the Oversight Board\u2019s work.Ahead of an appearance at the Financial Times\u2019s TNW conference in Amsterdam today, she spoke to the FT\u2019s technology news editor, Murad Ahmed. They discussed the rise of AI-generated deepfakes, the sometimes drastic consequences of the board\u2019s rulings, and how Meta\u2019s decisions affect her personal reputation.Murad Ahmed: This is the year of elections. More than half of the world has gone to, or is going to, the polls. You\u2019ve helped raise the alarm that this could also be the year that misinformation, particularly AI-generated deepfakes, could fracture democracy. We\u2019re midway through the year. Have you seen that prophecy come to pass?Helle Thorning-Schmidt: If you look at different countries, I think you\u2019ll see a very mixed bag. What we\u2019re seeing in India, for example, is that AI [deepfakes are] very widespread. Also in Pakistan it has been very widespread. [The technology is] being used to make people say something, even though they are dead. It\u2019s making people speak, when they are in prison. It\u2019s also making famous people back parties that they might not be backing. . . [But] If we look at the European elections, which, obviously, is something I observed very deeply, it doesn\u2019t look like AI is distorting the elections.\u00a0I think it\u2019s working very well. Meta is following all our decisions What we suggested to Meta is. . . they need to look at the harm and not just take something down because it is created by AI. What we\u2019ve also suggested to them is that they modernise their whole community standards on moderated content, and label AI-generated content so that people can see what they\u2019re dealing with. That\u2019s what we\u2019ve been suggesting to Meta. We\u2019re very happy that, particularly with the Biden case, this has meant that Meta will be changing their policies.MA: You\u2019re independent of Meta, as far as you can be. You\u2019re in a position where you\u2019re effectively lobbying Meta, rather than being able to force them to change in this case. Has that worked so far?HTS: I think it\u2019s working very well. Meta is following all our decisions. As far as I know, it\u2019s all but one decision they have followed. This is what they promised from the outset, and I think it\u2019s very clear that they are sticking to that promise.I particularly like that they have accepted [a recommendation] they should tell people if a word in their content means [it] has to be taken down. So they\u2019re actually informing people, \u201cif you change this word, your piece of content will not be removed\u201d. That gives a lot of transparency. It helps a lot of people, and that has helped millions already across the world to change their content so it is permissible on the platforms.Meta is not obliged to take all our recommendations, but I think they take them very seriously, and we are quite happy how far we have come with this tool of giving recommendations to Meta.MA: You mentioned that they accepted all your decisions but one, what was the one?HTS: It was the one in Cambodia.MA: Tell us about that.HTS: Well, in Cambodia, there was [then prime minister Hun Sen] who was putting up content that was extremely harmful and threatening, particularly to the opposition. We looked very thoroughly at this case and recommended that this particular user . . . should have a sanction of being taken off the platform for six months.Meta came back, recognised what we were saying, but [said a ban] would stifle free speech in Cambodia. That was their argument. We didn\u2019t agree with Meta on this. We still don\u2019t agree. We have a certain understanding for their argument, because it is true that Meta\u2019s platforms perhaps would have been abolished in Cambodia, not helping free speech in that country.That was a clear disagreement between Meta and the Oversight Board.MA: That had some pretty real-world consequences for you at the time, right?HTS: Yes, all the board members are now considered persona non grata in Cambodia. That\u2019s quite a big step for a government to take, particularly for me, who was also a former prime minister. . . but that also shows that they take our decisions seriously.MA: Isn\u2019t this one of those situations that leads to criticism of Meta and the Oversight Board as well? The Oversight Board made its decision, it wasn\u2019t able to enforce it. In Meta\u2019s case, you could say it was a free speech decision, but you could say they took the commercial imperative. They would rather be open in Cambodia than listen to your decision.HTS: You could say whatever you want. But I also think everywhere is the market for Meta, everyone knows that. . .And I\u2019m not defending Meta on this, but I do have a certain understanding for a point of view which is, basically, if you take down these platforms in Cambodia, for example, the opposition will have much narrower opportunities to put up their positions and their points of view. So it would stifle free speech in Cambodia if those platforms didn\u2019t exist in Cambodia, there\u2019s no doubt about it.That\u2019s always a balancing act. I do think the whole case underlines the complexity in content moderation. So I don\u2019t actually mind. We have this transparent discussion with Meta. That\u2019s also what the board is about. We take all these discussions, these very hard choices when it comes to content moderation, and put them out in the open. Now, we can discuss this, so people can have an opinion about this.We have this transparent discussion with Meta. Everyone can participate. They can see our reasoningWe give public ownership to those discussions. Everyone can participate. They can see our reasoning. They can see it in short or long form on our website. And what we have created is a system where Meta is not the last decision-maker on the most difficult content moderation decisions, because we are. These decisions always, always come down to that cross-point between free speech and other human rights. That is what it\u2019s always about. That\u2019s what we discuss endlessly. I\u2019m hoping that, with our work, everyone can see that these discussions are very difficult and take a lot of consideration, and everyone can participate, because we always allow public comments.MA: I want to come back to some of these decisions. You\u2019re deliberately given the edge cases, you\u2019re given the hard cases to deal with.HTS: We take the hard cases, because we take more than we are given. We take the cases ourselves, we choose them ourselves. Meta can refer cases to us as well, but most of our cases are just us deciding which cases we want to do.MA: Sure. Before I ask more about the Oversight Board and where you\u2019d like to take it, I just wanted to go back to the conversation about AI and deepfakes. What are you seeing in this world, popping up, and what is concerning you?HTS: Absolutely everything you can imagine. Deepfakes \u2014 having a politician saying something he didn\u2019t say, or she didn\u2019t say, doing something they didn\u2019t actually do. I think that was a brilliant case with the Biden case. It wasn\u2019t even an AI-generated , it was spliced. You can [manipulate] content so that it looks like a person is doing something they didn\u2019t do. People can get fooled by that. So that\u2019s one big area.Another area that we are very interested in right now is AI pornography, also with public figures, but it will spill over to non-public figures, which is a deep problem. This is an enormous problem, because it can create a lot of real-life harm very, very fast. Meta has to be very, very good at taking this kind of content down and finding signals of non-consent, better than they\u2019re doing right now. . .I think that can make an impact in how Meta treats AI-generated content that impacts particularly women but actually everyone, trans people, men as well, and also impacts female politicians, with these AI-generated nudes and even porn.I do think we will change how Meta operates in this space. I think we will end up, after a couple of years, with Meta labelling AI content and also being better at finding signals of consent that they need to remove from the platforms, and doing it much faster. This is very difficult, of course, but they need a very good system. They also need human moderators with cultural knowledge who can help them do this.What we are also looking at is whether they are equally good at doing this in their main markets, or big markets, like the US, as in other markets. So this is a very big issue for us, and I think we will be able to change Meta in this space over the coming years.MA: Two things to pick up from what you said. The first thing is, why is Meta not good at picking up signals of non-consent? Are there some issues, some structural issues, that mean that they\u2019re poor at this and need to improve?HTS: I think for Meta it\u2019s probably a balancing act of not over-enforcing. Particularly in the space of nudity, they don\u2019t want to [over]enforce, so I think that\u2019s the balancing act that Meta\u2019s trying to make. You\u2019ll see more about that when we finish our case.MA: You\u2019ve got a current case about this?HTS: We\u2019ve got two current cases going [about] public figures and nudity\/pornography.MA: Then the second thing I thought was interesting is that you think that Meta will get to a stage where they will just flag all AI content on their platforms. Why don\u2019t they just enforce this policy right away? Why take two years to get to this stage?We have suggested to them that they should label AI content, not take it down automaticallyHTS: I\u2019m not saying it should take two years, I\u2019m just saying that this is what we\u2019re looking into. I don\u2019t think anything should take two years. . . We will have more knowledge about how AI\u2019s impacting people, women, elections, all these things that we are talking about here. After the Biden case, Meta did say they would change how they deal with AI-generated content. We have suggested to them that they should label AI content, not take it down automatically.Because, as I\u2019m saying, not all AI-generated content is harmful. You can also do it in a way where it\u2019s actually really clear where it\u2019s satire, where it is funny. There is a lot of AI-generated content that can stay on the platform. [Meta] should look into labelling the AI-generated content and taking the content down if it is harmful.MA: Are you worried that Meta is spending less on moderation? The company has undergone a \u201cyear of efficiency\u201d cutting costs, including thousands of layoffs. Some of that has even affected the Oversight Board. There had to be restructuring there with people losing their jobs at the Oversight Board as well.HTS: Tech is cutting everywhere. It\u2019s what everyone is doing right now. I would have been surprised if that hadn\u2019t impacted the Oversight Board as well. We are very, very sad to see colleagues leave, but we are also very clear that we will do the same amount of cases moving forward.We have gone from being a start-up and having quite hand-held procedures inside our organisation to being more streamlined. For example, in our case selection, we have better systems, better priorities for how we select cases.We have changed a lot over the last four years. We will still create the same number of cases and policy advisory opinions, and we will definitely not stop all these debates that we are starting, for example with election moderation.MA: Are you worried that they may be very well invested in English language moderation, but less so in other languages around the world, and that creates problems and holes in their moderation coverage?HTS: Yes, there are gaps. We know that. We\u2019ve also said that to Meta, and they actually also made a substantial change. First of all, they have translated the community standards into a number of new languages. That\u2019s one of our first recommendations and they have actually done that.The other thing is, of course, that we have asked them for their election processes, the protocol they have around elections, which they have made because of the Trump decision, where we advised them to have election protocols. It is my understanding that they are much better at looking at other countries. They were much better using their protocol in the Brazil election [and] in some African languages as well.\u00a0[Meta] is better now at being able to moderate and understand the cultural context, but they\u2019re definitely not good enough. That\u2019s why, for example, in these two new AI cases that we\u2019re looking at, we will be looking at whether they are as vigilant in other markets as they are in the US market, for example.It could be that they are very, very fast to take a public figure down in the US, but perhaps not as vigilant and fast in other markets. And we\u2019re looking at that all the time.That\u2019s why it\u2019s so important that we are a global board. We are from the north, the south, east and west. We are from everywhere. It really creates a big difference in our conversations, that the perspective of global voices comes into our decisions.MA: What more would you like from Meta into the future? You can\u2019t look at political advertising cases, because that\u2019s outside the remit of the board. I think you\u2019ve been public about your desire to be able to grab cases related to that. Is there anything else that you would like more from Meta, to be able to do your jobs better?HTS: I spend every day asking more of Meta, so, of course, today is no exception. . .We would like to understand more of how they \u201cshadow-ban\u201d [the practice of restricting a user\u2019s content in ways that are not often apparent to them] and how they use AI to shadow-ban and sanction users. That\u2019s a bit of an opaque area still, and we would like to go more into that.Then we will continue looking at AI. We have had some brilliant recommendations in that space. Meta has accepted those recommendations, but we will keep looking into that. So we are not done with moderating AI content or deepfake content. So we will keep looking into that.Other platforms could use a bit of independent oversight, so we are inviting them to engage We think Meta has improved in how they are serving users, with more transparency and advising users on how they can treat their content to stay up on the platform. But we still hear from users that they are very confused about how Meta reacts to things, so we will keep looking into how Meta can treat their users better, and we will see progress in that space, as well.As I keep saying, I think Meta has grown up in the last five years. The Oversight Board has played a part in that. But I want Meta to be the safest, best platform of all of them. And we will push Meta to become better all the time.We also invite other platforms to make use of our services. I think some other platforms really could use a bit of independent oversight, so we are inviting other platforms to engage. But for now, we are pushing Meta every day to become better, more transparent, and to treat their users better.MA: On shadow-banning. Are you saying that this is a practice where they will not give you any insight into how they come up with their decisions, or it\u2019s outside your remit? HTS: It\u2019s not exactly in our remit right now, but we are pushing for us to be able to find cases in that space. You asked me what are the next things we want to push Meta into, and these are some of the things that interest us. AI, shadow-banning, their sanction system in general.MA: Why do you want to get more focused on this?HTS: It is something that users don\u2019t understand and something that. . . if you look at our cases, it\u2019s basically been about trying to clear some things up that users didn\u2019t understand, change the community standards when they weren\u2019t clear. They have done that, and make it more transparent to users how things are being moderated. I think that empowers the users.\u00a0We are also quite happy with the tools that users have these days. There is parental supervision. There is a lot an individual user can do to avoid certain types of content or engagement on their personal platforms or their personal accounts. We like this system. . .I think we are slowly building a system where you have regulators doing their bit. Europe\u2019s starting but that will move to the whole world. You will have the social media platforms, particularly Meta \u2014 I know Meta best \u2014 doing their bit and improving all the time with more transparency.Then, you have the independent Oversight Board. . . keep saying to Meta, you can do better in this space, with the focus on users and transparency for users and rights for users.\u00a0Then, of course, you have user pools where users get more agency in terms of what they\u2019re seeing on their own accounts. So [all these elements] are part of the ecosystem that I think will create better moderated content online.\u00a0Meta can\u2019t tell me what to say or do, or which decisions we take. They can\u2019t actually get rid of us, either. They\u2019re kind of stuck with us. . .MA: Cynics who have looked at the creation of the Oversight Board have argued it\u2019s a way for Meta to have an arm\u2019s-length approach to the toughest moderation decisions. It\u2019s a way of co-opting some great minds with great reputations to vindicate the way that Meta runs its platform.You are a former prime minister of your country. You\u2019ve gone on to do other great philanthropic work. Your reputation is now attached to how Meta develops and changes over time. Have you ever thought about the impact on you, because you have standing and weight in the world?HTS: Absolutely, a great question. I think all 22 of us on the board, the one thing we are most concerned about is our independence. None of us would have accepted this role if we weren\u2019t guaranteed our independence. Meta can\u2019t tell me what to say or do, or which decisions we take. They can\u2019t actually get rid of us, either. They\u2019re kind of stuck with us. . .They have also given 22 completely independent individuals a voice to criticise them all the time. What I\u2019m looking at is two things. Is Meta changing? Is Meta being more transparent \u2014 are they being more considerate in their content moderation?To be honest, I can\u2019t see any other tech companies that have changed as much as Meta has over the last four, five years. I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s solely because of the Oversight Board, but I do think that Meta has grown up in a number of ways. That\u2019s how I measure things. Is Meta changing, and do I think that the Oversight Board plays a part in that change? Definitely. Everyone is saying, Meta is doing this to push [difficult] decisions away from themselves. Perhaps. Well, they are actually also pushing decisions away from themselves, so it\u2019s no longer Meta that has the final word on some of the most difficult content moderation decisions. They have, actually, given those decisions to an independent body.So I\u2019m not sure I completely understand the scepticism. I could understand it if, four years in, there had been no changes, Meta didn\u2019t carry out our decisions, or didn\u2019t care about our recommendations. But the opposite is true. I\u2019m in it because I want to show that content moderation is possible, and that we are part of a bigger ecosystem of regulation, platforms taking responsibility, independent regulation, and users themselves getting more agency.That is what I believe in. I don\u2019t think you can get good content moderation if platforms are doing it themselves. I don\u2019t think you can get good content moderation if governments are doing content moderation, so that\u2019s why we have to create something in the middle.I still think it was very brave and bold of Meta to create that. They didn\u2019t have to do that. Other companies have not done that. That\u2019s why I\u2019m in it, because I want to see if this can change how content is being moderated, not only on Meta\u2019s platforms but in general.I\u2019m seeing progress. And as long as there\u2019s progress and independence, I don\u2019t care so much about my reputation, because I want to see things change in real life for users and for free speech.This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Helle-Thorning Schmidt was elected the first female prime minister of Denmark in 2011, holding her nation\u2019s highest office for four years, before later serving as chief executive of the charity Save the Children International.\u00a0Perhaps her most prominent public role today is as co-chair of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-132228","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-tech"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132228\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}