- Who governs—and who should govern—online communication? Social media companies,
international organizations, users, or the state? And by what means? A range of rhetorical
devices have been used to simplify the complexities associated with the governance
of online platforms. This includes “constitutional metaphors”: metaphorical allusions
to traditional political concepts such as statehood, democracy, and constitutionalism.
Here, we empirically trace the ascent of a powerful constitutional metaphor currently
employed in the news media discourse on platform governance: characterizations of
Facebook’s Oversight Board (OB) as a “supreme court.” We investigate the metaphor’s
descriptive suitability and question its normative and political ramifications. We argue that uncritical characterizations of the OB as Facebook’s “supreme court” obscure its
true scope and purpose. In addition, we argue that appropriating the socio-cultural
symbolism and hence political legitimacy of a supreme court and mapping it onto a
different type of actor poses a threat to responsible platform governance.