The Oversight Board — the policy body Meta created to weigh its most impactful moderation rulings — has seen its role within Mark Zuckerberg’s empire come into question due to shifting content policy priorities and dwindling investment. The Oversight Board has taken steps to formalize its long-contemplated desire to work with other companies, but Engadget has learned Meta has thus far declined to move forward with that process.
Over the last year, board members have become increasingly interested in artificial intelligence policy and how their experience shaping Meta’s content rules could translate into advising companies in the generative AI space. That interest has intensified as some AI companies have privately signaled they would be open to working with the board, according to a source familiar with the organization who was not permitted to speak publicly. The board began talks with Meta last fall about the possibility, which would require the company to sign off on changes to the legal documents that govern the board’s operations. But Meta officials have not indicated whether the company is willing to make those changes, which would likely require approval from top executives.
Platformer, which first reported on Meta’s budget negotiations with the Oversight Board, noted that the company “has long encouraged the board to seek additional funding sources.” So far, no other company has publicly shown interest in working with the group, though the board has had conversations with other firms behind the scenes.
Oversight Board co-chair Paolo Carozza told Engadget in December that there had been “really preliminary” discussions between the board and AI companies, though he declined to name which ones in particular. “It feels like quite a different moment now, largely because of generative AI, LLMs, chatbots [and] the way that a variety of retail-level users of these technologies are facing a whole new set of challenges and harms that’s attracting a lot of scrutiny,” he said at the time.
Meta has readily agreed to amend the board’s governing documents in the past — like when the trust that controls the Oversight Board’s budget funded a new organization to mediate content moderation disputes in Europe. While Meta executives once promoted the idea of its ostensibly independent Oversight Board working with other social media platforms, the prospect of the group working with a competitor as it pursues AI superintelligence is apparently more complicated.
Over the last five years, board members have received briefings from officials at Meta about the inner workings of its moderation systems and other non-public details as part of their work with the company. That raises practical questions about how the board would safeguard Meta’s proprietary information, as well as larger strategic questions about whether Meta would want its Oversight Board to work with some of the companies it’s now fiercely competing with, the source said. It’s not clear how invested Meta’s current leadership is in ensuring a future for the board. Former president of global affairs Nick Clegg, who was one of the most vocal champions of the board’s work, left the company last year.
Meanwhile, other board members have publicly made the case that the group, which consists of free speech and human rights experts from around the world, is well-positioned to guide AI companies grappling with an increasing number of real-world harms. When Anthropic published a “Claude Constitution” earlier this year, the board published a lengthy analysis from member Suzanne Nossel arguing that Claude also needed the kind of “oversight” the board has provided for Meta. She made a similar argument for the wider AI industry in an op-ed in The Guardian last month.
While Nossel denied that she was directly pitching the Oversight Board to Anthropic, she said that AI companies face many of the “same dilemmas” as social media platforms. “When the board was first created, there was the notion that we might work across the industry,” she told Engadget. “Now, as the world shifts toward an AI-centric paradigm, we’re very interested in what our experience can bring to that conversation.”
Oversight Board members, who naturally have a vested interest in expanding their purview, aren’t the only members of the industry who have warned that generative AI platforms are essentially speed-running social media companies’ playbook. A former OpenAI researcher recently wrote that “OpenAI Is Making the Mistakes Facebook Made,” citing the AI company’s moves toward optimizing for engagement and its plans for in-app advertising. The researcher cited Meta’s Oversight Board as an example of the kind of independent governance that’s needed in the AI industry.
The question of working with other companies has taken on new urgency as the Oversight Board faces the possibility that it will lose its backing from Meta. In a statement, a Meta spokesperson pointed to previous reports that Meta has committed to funding the board through 2028 and said that “nothing has changed.” But a source familiar with the board tells Engadget that Meta has so far only handed over half of the smaller tranche of 2028 funds to the board amid ongoing discussions about its future, including whether it will expand its purview beyond Meta.
There are also very real questions about how the Oversight Board fits into Meta’s current strategy around content moderation. Zuckerberg announced last year that Meta was shifting away from most proactive moderation, ending fact-checking in the United States and rolling back hate speech rules. Zuckerberg himself reportedly led the push for these changes following a meeting with then President-elect Donald Trump. The Oversight Board, which Meta has sometimes asked to advise on major policy changes, was not consulted. The company recently said it plans to reduce the number of human moderators in favor of AI-based systems.
“The Oversight Board is currently engaged in meaningful discussions with Meta regarding its future and the evolution of its model to ensure the organization can address the most urgent emerging challenges in AI governance, standards, and accountability,” an Oversight Board spokesperson said in a statement. “At this time, no decisions have been made about the Board’s future, and the organization’s day-to-day work and mandate remain unchanged.”
Critics have long said that the board, which has received more than $280 million from Meta, moves far too slowly. In a little more than five years of operation, the board has published more than 200 decisions about specific moderation issues, which Meta is required to uphold. Those decisions — a tiny fraction of the millions of requests it receives — can take months, though the board can opt to move more quickly. The board has also made hundreds of policy recommendations, which Meta has to respond to but isn’t required to implement. The company has agreed to at least some changes in response to 75 percent of recommendations, according to the board.
For the Oversight Board, working with a company besides Meta would begin to address some of the challenges it now faces. It would boost the group’s credibility at a time when Meta seems to be re-evaluating its relationship with the board, and it would open up the possibility of new sources of funding. But the situation underscores another long-simmering tension when it comes to the role of the “independent” oversight organization. Meta has always been in control of how much influence the group can actually have. And it’s not clear that the company is ready to let the board, which has spent the last five years learning the minutiae of Meta’s content moderation and policy processes, advise the companies it’s now competing with.
During its work with Meta, the Oversight Board has weighed in on its rules for AI several times. The board has criticized the company’s “manipulated media” policy that governs deepfakes and other content, which led to Meta adopting new rules around AI labeling. In its most recent decision dealing with AI, the board urged Meta to invest in better AI detection tools and to collaborate more closely with other platforms. The company has not yet formally responded to those recommendations.
