Facebook’s Civil Rights Audit On June 26, 2020 Mark announced new policies dealing with voting on topics ranging from prohibitions against inflammatory ads, the labeling of voting posts, guidance on voter interference policy enforcement, processes for addressing local attempts to engage in voter suppression and labeling and transparency on newsworthiness decisions. The Auditors examine these policies at greater length later in this report (in the Elections and Census 2020 Chapter), but simply put: these announcements are improvements, depending on how they are enforced — with the exception of the voting labels, the reaction to which was more mixed. Nevertheless, Facebook has not, as of this writing, reversed the decisions about the Trump posts and the Auditors are deeply troubled by that because of the precedent they establish for other speakers on the platform and the ways those decisions seem to gut policies the Auditors and the civil rights community worked hard to get Facebook to adopt. Where we go from here Facebook has a long road ahead on its civil rights journey, and both Megan Cacace and I have agreed to continue to consult with the company, but with the audit behind us, we are discussing what the scope of that engagement will look like. Sheryl Sandberg will continue to sponsor the work at the company. Mark Zuckerberg said that he will continue to revisit its voter suppression policies, as well as its policies relating to calls for violence by state actors. These policies have direct and consequential implications for the US presidential election in November 2020, and we will be watching closely. The responsibility for implementing strong equality, non-discrimination and inclusion practices rests squarely with the CEO and COO. They have to own it and make sure that managers throughout the company take responsibility for following through. As we close out the Audit process, we strongly encourage the company to do three things: • Seriously consider, debate and make changes on the various recommendations that Megan Cacace and I have shared throughout the final report, as well as in previous reports. In particular, it’s absolutely essential that the company do more to build out its internal civil rights infrastructure. More expertise is needed in-house, as are more robust processes that allow for the integration of civil rights perspectives. • Be consistent and clear about the company’s commitment to civil rights laws and principles. When Congress recently and pointedly asked Facebook if it is subject to the civil rights mandates of the federal Fair Housing Act, it vaguely asserted, “We have obligations under civil rights laws, like any other company.” In numerous legal filings, Facebook attempts to place itself beyond the reach of civil rights laws, claiming immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, leadership has publicly stated that “one of our top priorities is protecting people from discrimination on Facebook.” And, as a result of settling four civil rights lawsuits, the company has embraced civil rights principles in redesigning its advertising system to prevent advertisers from discriminating. Thus, what the Auditors have experienced is a very inconsistent approach to civil rights. Facebook must establish clarity about the company’s obligations to the spirit and the letter of civil rights laws. 11