Starting today, an independent panel will begin examining Facebook’s content moderation choices, determining which posts are permitted and which are removed from the platform.

This new process will delegate certain content decisions to a body known as the Facebook Oversight Board, a newly formed group designed to establish guidelines and influence future rulings regarding acceptable content.

According to Facebook, individuals who have already appealed content moderation rulings on Facebook or Instagram through standard channels will receive a unique identification number. This ID will allow them to submit their cases directly to the Oversight Board for review.

The board will select which cases to examine, drawing from both user submissions and cases referred by Facebook itself. The 20-member board, initially announced in May, evolved from a group of four co-chairs appointed by Facebook. This international team comprises former journalists, judges from U.S. appeals courts, advocates for digital rights, a former Danish prime minister, and a representative from the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization.

However, as previously reported, the board’s rulings will not automatically trigger changes on the platform. Instead, any policy recommendations made by the Oversight Board will be sent back to Facebook for consideration, where the company will “review the guidance” and decide whether or not to implement the suggested changes.

While the Oversight Board’s decisions regarding specific content will be upheld, these rulings may not be broadly applied across the entire social network. Facebook states it is “committed to enforcing the Board’s decisions on individual pieces of content, and to carefully considering and transparently responding to any policy recommendations.”

The group’s initial focus on content that has been removed, rather than content that remains online, will also limit its scope. Despite disagreement from some conservative critics in Congress, Facebook’s most pressing issues concern the content that is allowed to stay online—not what is taken down. Content circulating on Facebook, such as the coordination of violent groups, the dissemination of false information about elections by political figures, or misinformation from military sources that incites violence in places like Myanmar, has the potential to significantly and dangerously alter perceptions of reality.

Acknowledging this criticism, Facebook asserts that decisions about content still visible on the platform are “very much in scope from Day 1,” as the company can directly submit these cases to the Oversight Board. However, given that Facebook controls which cases are referred, this raises concerns about the board’s independence from the outset.

Facebook explains that the board will initially concentrate on reviewing content removals due to the structure of its current systems, but it intends “to bring all types of content outlined in the bylaws into scope as quickly as possible.”

“We expect them to make some decisions that we, at Facebook, will not always agree with – but that’s the point: they are truly autonomous in their exercise of independent judgment,” the company stated in May.

However, this view is contested by critics. Skeptics of Facebook from various perspectives have criticized the oversight effort, labeling it a facade and arguing that its actual authority is less than Facebook suggests.

Facebook expressed disapproval when a group of prominent critics, calling themselves the “Real Facebook Oversight Board,” launched late last month. Earlier in the year, a technology watchdog organization urged the board’s five U.S.-based members to either demand greater authority or resign.

Facebook also encountered criticism when it announced that the Oversight Board, years in development, would not be operational until “late fall.” However, with the election rapidly approaching, Facebook has expedited the implementation of new policies and safeguards on issues it had previously delayed—including, apparently, the Oversight Board.