Today, let’s talk about a new opinion from Meta’s Oversight Board that attempts to square a tension at the heart of any big social network: on one hand, a desire to treat its users with equality; and on the other, an acknowledgement that in practice some groups of users deserve special treatment.If the president of a country regularly communicates with their citizens on a platform (particularly a country that might ban or otherwise restrict your business), you want to be extra careful with any steps you take to remove their posts or suspend their account.It called the company’s actions “a breach of trust” and added: “Unlike the rest of our community, these people can violate our standards without any consequences.” Days after the article’s publication, the Oversight Board — an independent body funded by Meta with the intention of serving as a check on its content moderation and policy decisions — said it would investigate.This qualified as a fairly sick burn As described in the 57-page opinion, Meta dragged its feet during the board’s fact-finding process, in one case waiting almost five months to answer a question about what sorts of accounts qualify for cross-check protection.(Meta cited privacy concerns, as companies often do in these situations, but the board said it “believes, and has pointed out to Meta, that these concerns could have been mitigated and more extensive disclosures provided.” In the relatively dry, somber world of communications between Meta and the board, I thought this qualified as a fairly sick burn.)"