Revealed - Facebook's $130m 'independent supreme court': List of 20 'politically neutral' members includes left-wing luminaries such as ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger and Labour MP Stephen Kinnock's former Danish PM wife

Facebook faces a storm over the make-up of its new 'politically neutral' supreme court after it was swamped with left-wing luminaries from across the globe including an anti-Trump campaigner who poked fun at his teenage son.

Critics have accused Mark Zuckerberg of 'blowing' his chance of setting up a 'meaningful' and 'politically balanced' oversight committee for the social media giant because so few of its 20 members have conservative credentials.

Denmark's first female prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the wife of Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, son of ex-party leader Neil, is among the big names appointed to the powerful group. The social democrat was elected in 2011 on a pro-immigration, high tax manifesto before losing power in 2015 and is now chief executive of Save the Children.

British former Liberal Democrat MP leader Sir Nick Clegg, now head of public affairs at Facebook, is said to have been instrumental in the decision to appoint Alan Rusbridger. He was editor of the left-leaning Guardian newspaper for 20 years, which was chosen by Edward Snowden to publicise his NSA leaks and campaigned against the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

He has recently argued that US TV should stop live broadcasting President Trump's White House press conferences and said last night he had taken the job because of 'a crisis of free expression' in the world and that he can help the 'independent, external oversight' of Facebook. 

Twitter users were quick to point out that many of the panel are left-wingers. And Rusbridger's appointment has been blasted by a British MP as 'failing miserably to provide confidence in the board's political balance'.   

Andrew Bridgen told MailOnline: ‘It seems strange that any company which aims to offer services to a population would consistently recruit to positions of considerable responsibility individuals with what are clearly minority political views. It is not only bad practice – it’s also bad business and risks alienating the majority of their customer base’. 

Reacting to claims that Sir Nick Clegg was instrumental in the appointment of Alan Rusbridger he added: ‘I’m always concerned at left wingers having influence – I went into politics to ensure they are not in government’.

Tory MP Damian Green, a member of the UK's Culture, Media, and Sport commitee told the Telegraph: 'Globally, Facebook is much more important than any newspaper or broadcaster, so it has a consequent responsibility to demonstrate it is open to a range of views.' 

Fellow Conservative Andrew Bridgen called the new board 'bad practice' and 'bad business' that 'risks alienating the majority of their customer base' while Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski  said: 'It is important that any organisation, be it a global corporate or local government, benefits from a plurality of views which are reflective of the societies in which they operate.'

+8

The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018, and the California-based internet giant has set up a foundation to fund it

+8

+8

Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, wife of Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, son of Neil Kinnock, is one of the chairs of Facebook's independent oversight panel sometimes referred to as a 'supreme court'. Former editor of the left-wing Guardian Newspaper Alan Rusbridger has also been appointed to the so-called court

+8

Americans dominate Facebook's first supreme court and includes Trump impeachment witness Pamela Karlan, who made the president's son Barron, 14, the butt of a joke about a president's powers during her testimony.

Tawakkol Abdel-Salam Karman, a Yemeni activist who became  Nobel Peace Prize laureate described by Time Magaizine as one of 'History's Most Rebellious Women', is among the other big names on the 20-strong list.

Facebook public policy director Brent Harris yesterday described creation of the board as the 'beginning of a fundamental change in the way some of the most difficult content decisions on Facebook will be made.'   

Facebook's board director Thomas Hughes said during a phone briefing said: 'This is a group that has a diverse set of insights, backgrounds, and beliefs but share a deep commitment to advancing human rights and freedom of expression.'

Some free expression and internet governance experts told Reuters they thought the board's first members were a diverse, impressive group, though some were concerned it was too heavy on U.S. members. 

Facebook said one reason for that was that some of its hardest decisions or appeals in recent years had begun in America.

'I don't feel like they made any daring choices,' said Jillian C. York, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of international freedom of expression.

David Kaye, U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said the board's efficacy would be shown when it started hearing cases.

'The big question,' he said, 'will be, are they taking questions that might result in decisions, or judgments as this is a court, that go against Facebook's business interests?'

The board is to be expanded to 40 members. It remained unclear when the board would start hearing cases due to restrictions on gathering or traveling caused by the deadly coronavirus pandemic.

Board members have met virtually and training has started, according to Hughes.

The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018, and the California-based internet giant has set up a foundation to fund it operating as an independent entity, Harris said.

'As the world lives through a global health crisis, social media has become a lifeline for helping people and communities to stay connected,,' the board said in a blog post.

'At the same time, we know that social media can spread speech that is hateful, harmful and deceitful. In recent years, the question of what content should stay up or come down, and who should decide this, has become increasingly urgent for society.'

Hughes said he was open to the board serving as an arbiter of disputes for other social media firms such as Twitter but that, for now, the focus is on filling its roster and getting into action on cases about Facebook or Instagram posts.

Facebook will implement the board's decisions, unless they violate law, and 'respond' to guidance on policies, according to Harris.

The board said it will decide whether disputed posts comply with Facebook and Instagram policies and 'values' as well as freedom of expression within the framework of international norms of human rights regardless of the social network's corporate interests.

The board will make decisions public and report on how well Facebook obeys rulings.

Zuckerberg has personally assured the board the social network will abide by its decisions, according to co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a former prime minister of Denmark.

'This board is not designed to be an echo chamber,' said co-chair Catalina Botero-Marino of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law in Colombia.

'Facebook would have a very high reputational cost if it doesn't carry out decisions by a body it created to resolve its thorniest problems.'

Facebook cannot remove members or staff of the board, which is supported by a $130 million irrevocable trust fund.

'For the first time, an independent body will make final and binding decisions on what stays up and what is removed,' Thorning-Schmidt said.

'This is a big deal; we are basically building a new model for platform governance.'

Board co-chair Michael McConnell, a university law professor and former US federal judge, said the expected volume of cases would make it impossible to consider them all.

Instead, like the US Supreme Court, the board will prioritize content removal cases that can set precedents for how Facebook should handle similar material, according to McConnell.

'We are going to have to select maybe a few flowers, or maybe they are weeds, from a field of possibilities,' McConnell said.

The board plans to first focus on cases affecting large numbers of users; second on cases look to have major effect on public discourse, and then those that effect policy at the platform, he explained.

+8

+8

Former U.S. federal circuit judge Michael McConnell (left) and constitutional law expert Jamal Greene (right) are the American co-chairs of the board

+8

Colombian attorney Catalina Botero-Marino is the fourth co-chair. The co-chairs selected the other members of Facebook's 'supreme court'

'We are not the internet police,' McConnell said.

'Don't think of us as a fast action team that is going to swoop in. Our job is to consider appeals, provide an after-the-fact, deliberative second look.' 

Former British MP Nick Clegg, who was leader of the Liberal Democrats before becoming Facebook's head of global affairs, told Reuters in a Skype interview the board's composition was important but that its credibility would be earned over time.

'I don't expect people to say, 'Oh hallelujah, these are great people, this is going to be a great success' - there's no reason anyone should believe that this is going to be a great success until it really starts hearing difficult cases in the months and indeed years to come,' he said.

The board will start work immediately and Clegg said it would begin hearing cases this summer.

The board, which will grow to about 40 members and which Facebook has pledged $130 million to fund for at least six years, will make public, binding decisions on controversial cases where users have exhausted Facebook's usual appeals process.

The company can also refer significant decisions to the board, including on ads or on Facebook groups. The board, in turn, can make policy recommendations to Facebook based on case decisions, to which the company will publicly respond.

'We are not the internet police, don't think of us as sort of a fast-action group that's going to swoop in and deal with rapidly moving problems,' co-chair McConnell told reporters on a conference call.

The board's case decisions must be made and implemented within 90 days, though Facebook can ask for a 30-day review for exceptional cases.

Initially, the board will focus on cases where content was removed and Facebook expects it to take on only 'dozens' of cases to start, a small percentage of the thousands it expects will be brought to the board.

Some members of the board have advocated against the tight regulation of online expression. John Samples, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, has praised Facebook's decision not to remove a doctored video of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while Sajo has warned against allowing the 'offended' to have too much influence in the debate around online expression.

+8

Former Lib Dem MP Nick Clegg is now head of public affairs at Facebook