Analyze

An oversight board of 20 well-known, reputable individuals has been (publically) convened to make final decisions about contested content removal from the platform. 

Critics note that content removal is not the only ethical issue Facebook has, and Siva Vaidhyanathan notes that the proprietary algorithm that shows people content is a serious issue over which this board has no authority. 

Joan Donovan notes that the slow legalistic pace will not keep up even when damaging content is a serious ethical issue, as even only a few hours is sufficient for viral digital content to reach huge audiences: 

Joan Donovan, the research director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center and an expert on media manipulation, raised concerns that the board would become “weaponized” by bad actors, who will use it as another opportunity to get their issues into the press.

“This theory of oversight is heavily informed by legal scholarship, which is slow and administrative and technical in nature, when we need something much more suited to the speed of the technology itself,” she said. “They’re going forward with this really long drawn out procedural mechanism that doesn’t address what the problem is – which is that viral content only needs to be on the internet for 4-8 hours for it to do its damage.”

Looking at the scale of the “infodemic” facing Facebook amid the coronavirus pandemic, Donovan said that the much more pressing concern is to solve the problem of “information curation, especially in a place like Facebook, that helps guide the user toward correct content and information rather than putting them in the middle a landfill and saying, ‘You sort it out’.” The oversight board is ultimately a distraction from “what really needs to happen”, she said, “which is to design technology that doesn’t allow for the expansive amplification of disinformation and health misinformation”.

This policy applies to any persons who are considered refugees. Because this was after the Second World War, it was at first limited to people fleeing within Europe. Since then, its scope has widened and applies to people fleeing persecution and can be used today with respect to the current refugee problem. 

This policy was drafted by the United Nations. 26 countries and/or states were represented during this convention, including: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. Cuba and Iran were also represented. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees participated, but was not given the right to vote on the matter. The International Labor Organization and the International Refugee Organization were also represented. Other NGOs were present as well. 

This policy is in reference to refugees seeking political asylum. Its initial aim was to define what a refugee is and outline how they should be treated and accepted. They acknowledge the problems relating to refugee travels and documents needed, problems regarding keeping family units together, as this is an essential right of a refugee. They also mention that refugees are a vulnerable group, and as such, require some degree of welfare services. They stress the importance of international cooperation and understanding that refugees need protection. Finally, they outline the treatment of refugees. This is an extensive document and policy, containing 46 Articles.  

The convention in 1951 was a response to WW2 and the vast amounts of refugees that existed as a result. States involved in the convention and the UN could decide to apply it to refugees not necessarily from WW2, but in 1967, the limits were removed and made it so that it could apply to any refugees, not just those from WW2. It has since been used during major refugee crises in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. 

While this policy doesn't directly address public health, it does concern the rights and protection of displaced persons. They recognize the stressful situations that refugees are in and that welfare resources will be needed to help them. They discuss housing rights and rights to public education. While these might not be medical treatments, they would help with public health and are associated with overall well-being of these refugees. 

The entirety of this document illustrates how vulnerable refugees are. They define refugee to be someone who has been persecuted for reasons of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." They discuss the fear that refugees feel and that they should be treated favorably, sympathetically, and like other citizens of the contracting state. 

I can't find anything about how it was received back in the day, but with the current refugee problem facing the world, there is dispute about how to treat refugees and other immigration issues. Rhetoric used to describe refugees - especially those from Syria - has caused a lot of xenophobia around the world and various problems regarding immigration.

I think the main takeaway for first responders would be to treat these refugees as if they were anyone else. They should be treated fairly and favorably and should not be discriminated against when it comes to emergency care.