A new social media appeals body has issued more than 150 decisions about content on Facebook and TikTok.
The Appeals Centre Europe opened in November and began issuing decisions in late January.
The centre is based in Dublin and hears disputes from people and organisations in Ireland and across the EU.
The body is initially deciding cases relating to Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, and is aiming to include more social media platforms over time.
It hears complaints about decisions by platforms relating to issues such as the removal of content and the suspension of users’ accounts.
1,500 disputes so far
The centre has received more than 1,500 disputes from people across the EU looking to challenge the decisions of platforms.
The issues were most likely to be about potential violations of platforms’ rules on adult nudity, followed by bullying and harassment, and restricted goods and services, which governs how users can mention products like drugs and alcohol.
To date, 76% of disputes have been about Facebook, 21% related to TikTok, and 3% were linked to YouTube.
The centre has issued 141 decisions about content on Facebook relating to issues such as hate speech, bullying and misinformation.
In 77 of these cases, the appeals body agreed with the user who submitted the complaint, overturning Meta’s original decision to leave up or take down the content.
The decisions are non-binding but the Appeals Centre said Meta has already started implementing its findings, adding that it will release more information about this in its first transparency report which will be published by the middle of the year.
Last week, the centre made its first decisions about content on TikTok and it will soon issue its first decisions about content on YouTube.
Complaints from Ireland
The largest number of disputes have come from Italy, followed by France and Germany.
Around 70 disputes were received from Ireland and when considered on a ‘per capita’ basis it was the second highest figure amongst EU member states.
The top issues for users in Ireland were harassment and bullying, hate speech, and dangerous organisations and individuals.
Centre is Europe’s ‘best-kept-secret’
The Appeals Centre has been certified by the media regulator Coimisiún na Meán as an out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) body under the EU’s set of online safety rules, the Digital Services Act (DSA).
Under the DSA, social media platforms must make access to out-of-court dispute settlement clear and user-friendly.
Platforms must have a dedicated webpage about dispute settlement bodies, mention them clearly in their internal appeals process, and reference them in the statement of reasons sent to users.
The Appeals Centre said platforms need to do more to ensure that their users know about, and can benefit from, appeals bodies.
“While the Digital Services Act has created a new right for people to challenge platforms’ decisions, those platforms are making it Europe’s best-kept-secret,” said Thomsas Hughes, CEO of Appeals Centre Europe.
“If your content is unfairly removed, or if you see harmful content which you think should be removed, do something about it.”
“Many people and organisations are already doing this, and we’ve received 1,500 disputes from across the EU. But this is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to the number of content moderation actions these platforms are making,” Mr Hughes said.
Appeals Centre funding
The start-up funding for the Appeals Centre has been provided through a one-time grant from the Meta Oversight Board Trust but the centre has insisted that it will be independent of Meta.
Once it is up and running, the new Appeals Centre will be funded through fees charged to social media companies for each case.
At the current time, users who raise a dispute are not being charged but in the future, they will be asked to pay what is described as a ‘nominal fee’ of €5, which is refunded if the centre finds in their favour.
The Appeals Centre said it will operate as an independent regulatory body that will provide an alternative to often costly and time-consuming legal routes to redress.
