In other words, an inter-legal approach does not search for an universalist point to determine the overlap between legal orders. Instead, the approach primarily focuses on the “angle of the case” at hand and considers it as a “master” which guides the decision maker to see the relevant normativities controlling the case.

Second, based on the case at stake, the second step suggests the legal decision-maker should “account for as many normativities as those involved in the case” by considering the “multi-faced nature of the text of law,” meaning that the text of law is composed of more than one system-sourced positive law and is not limited to political, legal, and cognitive borders of a single self-contained system [65] . In this way, it suggests that legalities controlling the case are already unavoidably interconnected [66] . Indeed, for this reason, none of the legalities or regimes work effectively on their own. Therefore, considering relevant normativities to a particular legality is the only way to strengthen the effectiveness of that legality or regime.

Finally, the third step recommends a rational questioning of this interplay to draw the “just” solution from a composite “perspective that is not merely one-sided” [67] . Considering the different normativities helps the decision maker to avoid injustice [68] .

In the context of online platforms, the determination of a proper “vantage point” is crucial. Such a situation is a result of the cross-border nature of the Internet which represents a key feature of its architecture. Operating from one location, being incorporated in another and producing its effects on users in many different jurisdictions, the very nature of the social network’s architecture is transnational. This starting point lends itself naturally to the application of international law as the attempt to ignore it would be to disregard the global and transnational nature of the Internet. ¶{p. 381}

In this context, any solution for the regulatory challenges that online platforms pose could not disregard the global and borderless nature of the Internet. The activities of such services occur globally and independently from national borders. Therefore, considering only American free speech norms as the companies are based in the US or the standards developed by those companies or the other domestic solutions cannot be effective. From the perspective of inter-legality, the just and coherent solution on the Internet could be primarily to consider international law norms controlling the case due to the virtual and global nature of such systems.

However, it should be noted that, from an inter-legal point of view, this does not mean that international law norms would be the only solution in this debate. Indeed, the approach of inter-legality takes a stand against the domination of one particular legality that could create legal hegemony or monopoly over other legalities. In other words, the concept is fundamentally in search of equilibrium between legalities instead of creating domination or contradiction. However, online platforms, due to their global architecture, have posed a different “vantage point” – that is virtual and borderless – with its capacity to govern more human communication than any government does. For this very reason, norms of international law have become prominent in this debate.

The five decisions that the Facebook Oversight Board has issued in January 2021 seem to go into this direction. Covering diverse jurisdictions (Brazil, Armenia, France, United States) the decisions rely on interpretations of Article 19 and 20 of the ICCPR including the general comments on these two articles developed by the UN Human Rights Committee over the course of its work as well as other UN human rights instruments such as the Convention of the Rights of the Child [69] . As such the decisions seem to affirm the commitment to a global free speech standard finding ¶{p. 382}that in four out of five cases, Facebook acted against both the global free speech norms and its own standards.

However, while considering the international law, the decisions of the Oversight Board exclude another normativity, that of the national legislation and its norms. This will not represent a problem when the content originating by the users from a national jurisdiction with a wide interpretation of freedom of speech (such as the US) or with strong guarantees of implementation of national regulation (such the German Netz DG). It will also not represent a problem where the national regulatory standards are absent or openly ignored such as the case of Myanmar in 2018, where the Facebook posts facilitated the spread of hatred that culminated in genocide against the Rohingya Muslims minority [70] . But, where the national regulation emulates the strictness of the German Netz DG combining it with a political intention to limit the freedom of speech, the current approach by the Oversight Board might prove itself to be insufficient ultimately weakening the global freedom of speech norm [71] .

The Board does seem to be aware of the need to contextualize its decisions; for example, in the Brazilian nudity case it has contextualized the takedown of material as counterproductive to the awareness raising goals of a cancer prevention campaign [72] . Therefore, taking the next step which is to consider the norms stemming from the Brazilian legislation would be a logical step in the direction of a more balanced and just solution. This does not mean that the national regulation would take precedence over international law but that it matters from an inter-legal point of view, as ¶{p. 383}we stated already above even if the inclusion would mean that the Board would have reached the same decision.

From a policy angle, the decision to exclude it from the analysis (just as the norms of national jurisdictions in the other four cases were excluded) allows Facebook to escape the criticism of attempting to impose its standards onto countries. But, to do as the Oversight Board currently does which is to openly ignore them, also ignores the legal reality which is the triangulation of the speech [73] and the overlap of the legal orders. The pressure from those pushing for the complaints to be reviewed by the Oversight Board will undoubtedly lead Facebook into considering them and the sooner this is acknowledged the more convincing the decisions of the Oversight Board will be. Therefore, consideration of the domestic legal norms in this process would be a step necessary in the interest of justice. It would achieve more in promoting the debate about the global regulatory free speech standards and prevention of the compartmentalization of free speech standards along national lines.

Silhouetting the form of a State online, platforms have posed us a question whether the concept of inter-legality would be a technique to solve the challenges posed by the platforms. As the inter-legal approach “does not itself decide what counts as a legal order”, considering the increasing power of platforms in the global governance of freedom of speech standards, we demonstrated that they are already a part of the ecosystem. Moreover, inter-legality allows us to bypass much of the current ongoing discussions regarding the regulatory approaches to technology [74] .¶{p. 384}

In the light of premises of inter-legality, the examinations of the decisions of the Oversight Board demonstrate that although the attention was paid to the international law as the legal order that was historically excluded from these decisions, this was at the expense of national legislation and other relevant legalities. Instead, inter-legality offers us a clear judicial path in resolving the issues at hand providing more just solutions based on inclusive reasoning and not the exclusion of the legal orders. This may achieve two important goals: first, to counter the fragmentation of the global space for freedom of expression that will result from the inevitable further regulatory pressures of the state and second, to strengthen the quality of decision making and accountability within the platforms.