The decision on the veto imposed on the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, remains on Facebook and Instagram. The Board affirmed that Trump’s posts during the Capitol riots severely violated Facebook’s rules and encouraged and legitimized the violence.
Facebook’s independent oversight panel announced on Wednesday its decision on the veto imposed by the platform on former US President Donald Trump, in a case that may set a precedent for how social networks handle dangerous content published by world leaders.
The decision was made by the so-called “supreme court” of Facebook, created independently to address the thorny issue of what to allow or remove from the platform. What did it determine? Maintain Facebook’s January 7 decision to suspend then-President Trump from Facebook and Instagram. “Trump’s posts during the Capitol riots severely violated Facebook’s rules and encouraged and legitimized the violence,” he noted.
The Board has upheld Facebook’s decision on January 7 to suspend then-President Trump from Facebook and Instagram. Trump’s posts during the Capitol riot severely violated Facebook’s rules and encouraged and legitimized violence. https://t.co/veRvWpeyCi
— Oversight Board (@OversightBoard) May 5, 2021
The Board also found that Facebook violated its own rules by imposing a suspension that was “indefinite.” This penalty is not described in Facebook’s content policies. It does not have clear criteria and gives Facebook full discretion on when to enforce or lift it, the Board said.
Within 6 months from today, Facebook must review this matter and decide on a new sanction that reflects its rules, the severity of the violation, and the possibility of future harm. Facebook may impose a limited-time suspension or account deletion.
The supervisory panel, which makes binding decisions for Facebook cannot be appealed.
“It’s a great decision, it’s getting a lot of attention and deservedly so,” said Daniel Kreiss, a professor at the University of North Carolina and a researcher specializing in politics and social media.
“This is significant because of the global precedent it will set. If they keep the decision, I think we will see more robust measures around the world, “he said.
The panel also noted that “Facebook cannot make up the rules on the fly, and anyone who is concerned about its power should be concerned about allowing this. Having clear rules that apply to all users and to Facebook is essential to ensure that the company treats users fairly. This is what the Board represents ”.
It may interest you: Twitter and Facebook could not contain Donald Trump
Comprised of lawyers, policy experts, journalists and others from around the world, it will make this decision at a time when social media struggles to remain open to political discourse while filtering abusive or violence-inciting content and misinformation.
Follow the news of El Espectador on Google News“It’s a litmus test of whether these huge tech companies can effectively self-regulate,” said Lindsay Gorman, an emerging technology specialist with the Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The supervisory panel is “(Facebook’s) best attempt to avoid impending government regulation,” he added.
Very late?
Trump was suspended from Facebook after he published a video during the violent invasion of the US Capitol on January 6 by his followers, in which he told them: “We love you, you are very special.”
The then president was permanently banned from Facebook the next day, while other platforms such as Twitter and YouTube also removed his accounts.
Some analysts say that Facebook and other networks should have taken action on Trump before, as they spent years granting him exceptions to the rules of abusive content for the “news interest” of his publications as a political leader.
It may interest you: Trump’s blog to bypass the veto in social networks
“He was using Facebook and other platforms to actively spread flagrantly false content about the electoral process, very effectively undermining American democracy,” said Samuel Woolley, a specialist in computerized propaganda at the University of Texas and who believes that the veto must have occurred. ” long before”.
Trump has been stoic about vetoes, frequently sending out e-mails. And, in addition, he launched a blog-like website on Tuesday, which he described as “a place to talk freely and safely.” Visitors to this page can “Like” Trump’s posts and republish them on Facebook and Twitter.
Facebook sent Trump’s case to the supervisory panel, in line with its position that company executives should not make key decisions about content and political speech. The panel has received more than 9,000 comments on the case.
The decision by Facebook and other platforms has also generated numerous criticisms from Trump supporters, who argue that these large tech groups are biased and limit opposing positions.
But it has also generated concern in others, such as civil liberties activists or German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who considered Facebook’s decision “problematic”.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the issue is more complex than just evaluating Trump’s comments.
“I hope the panel will use this case as an opportunity to focus on Facebook’s decisions about the design of its platform,” said Jaffer.
“These engineering decisions are usually invisible, but they determine what speech proliferates on the platform, how quickly it spreads, who sees it, and in what context it is viewed,” he explained.
It may interest you: Facebook blocks Donald Trump’s account
In its request to the panel, the institute said that Facebook should conduct “an independent study on how its platform may have contributed to the events of January 6” and that the board should make a decision on Trump “only after the company has given the result of that study “.
Elizabeth Renieris, director of the Notre Dame-IBM Tech Ethics Lab, said – meanwhile – the decision is unlikely to end the content moderation controversy.
“The panel’s analysis and reasoning in this instance may well help shape the policies of Facebook and other digital platforms on how they deal with political leaders and other public figures going forward,” he said.
“But whatever the decision, we must continue to take into account that decisions of this nature are being made by corporations (…) and advisers appointed by themselves,” he added.
