The group has repeatedly criticized the company’s handling of AI-generated material.
The Oversight Board is once again pushing Meta to address the flood of AI-generated content on its platform. The group published its two latest decisions dealing with the social media company’s handling of AI content. The cases show that Meta’s rules are “consistently and fundamentally inadequate to address the rapid rise of AI-generated content on its platforms,” the board said in a statement.
Both cases were related to posts with AI-generated videos. One depicted a Scottish politician saying “refugees are welcome here, even if they rape our women, because white people do that too.” The video was a “realistic” but synthetic portrayal, according to the Board. And the politician whose voice was replicated said the effect of the video was “quite traumatic.”
Meta told the board that it didn’t remove the video when it was reported because it hadn’t been flagged by any of its “trusted partner” organizations and because it didn’t seem to be interfering with voting or other processes. The video was also not labeled as AI-generated, apparently because the person who posted it didn’t choose to disclose it was made with AI.
The Oversight Board said that the video should have been removed for breaking Meta’s hateful conduct rules, and that it should have been prominently labeled as AI.
The other case also features an AI-generated video of a real person. The video was based on a TV interview with a volunteer who was promoting menstrual health education. Some time after the initial interview, “accounts across social media platforms digitally manipulated the interview footage to ridicule her” and those videos went viral.
According to the board, Meta automatically closed a report and subsequent appeal about the post, which was never labeled as AI-generated. Meta removed the video for breaking its rules around bullying only after the Oversight Board got involved.
The group says that both cases highlight how AI content is being used to target people on its platforms and that the lack of consistent labeling is causing additional harm. “From politicians to private citizens, AI-generated deepfakes are increasingly being used to harass and silence women from engaging in public discourse,” Oversight Board Co-Chair Pamela San Martin said in a statement. “These cases demonstrate a broader, troubling pattern in which women who engage publicly on issues are disproportionately subjected to harassment and misinformation.”
The Oversight Board’s criticism is unsurprising. The group, which makes policy recommendations to Meta, has repeatedly criticized the company for its approach to AI content and urged for new rules. The bigger question is whether Meta really cares about the board’s perspective on this issue. The company has so far made few changes to its AI labels, which typically consist of a small banner that says “AI Info.” The company hasn’t agreed to implement many of the board’s recommendations on AI labeling in other recent cases.
Meta didn’t respond to a request for comment on the board’s latest comments. But the company has 60 days to respond to its latest recommendations, including that it prioritize likely AI content for review when it’s reported.
