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.

Featured Image

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.

Perspectives

This publication seeks to work at the interfaces of disciplines such as argumentation theory and legal theory, something which I think is required by the very nature of the case studied. I was keen and very honored to be published in the Journal of Argumentation in Context, given that decisions regarding issues beyond one single domestic state or field must be especially open to a multi-perspectival scrutiny of argumentation in the public sphere.

Gabriel Alejandro Encinas Duarte
Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Interlegal argumentation in the UK Drill Music decision of Meta’s Oversight Board, Journal of Argumentation in Context, April 2025, John Benjamins,
DOI: 10.1075/jaic.24004.enc.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page