Facebook’s Oversight Board has temporarily upheld the ban on Trump’s accounts but refused to make a final call on it, instead throwing the controversial decision back to Mark Zuckerberg and giving him another six months to ponder it.
The board announced its decision on Wednesday, almost exactly four months since Trump was banned in response to the Capitol riot. It was an unprecedented move of censorship on a world leader and sparked a global debate over how much control social media and big tech should have over free speech.
The oversight board – whose sole purpose is to make sure Facebook does not have full autonomy over the site – took on the case and has spent months deliberating it amid fervent anticipation.
But in their decision on Wednesday, the five deciding board members (who are not named) refused to make a decision. They justified their refusal by criticizing Facebook for not giving Trump a timeframe for how long the ban would last.
They also revealed that Facebook refused to answer seven of its 46 questions as part of the investigation, including some on what its role in stoking the riot was.
‘In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities.
‘The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty,’ they said.
Wednesday’s decision not only tosses the decision back to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, but it also gives him another six months to consider what to do.
In the meantime, the former president remains offline and unable to communicate with his tens of millions of social media supporters.
FACEBOOK REFUSED TO ANSWER IF IT STILL MADE MONEY ON ADS THAT TARGETED TRUMP’S FOLLOWERS AFTER BANNING HIM
Facebook’s Oversight Board has revealed that the social media giant refused to answer seven of its 46 questions over the Trump ban, including some about what role it played in the January 6 riot.
‘The questions that Facebook did not answer included questions about how Facebook’s news feed and other features impacted the visibility of Mr. Trump’ s content; whether Facebook researched, or plans to research, those design decisions in relation to the events of January 6, 2021; and information about violating content from followers of Mr. Trump’s accounts.’
It also did not answer questions about whether removing content impacted advertisers and their ability to target Trump’s followers.
‘Facebook states that this information was not reasonable required for decision making in accordance with the intent of the Charter.’
In response to the decision, Facebook’s VP of Global Affairs, former deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, said: ‘We thank the oversight board for the care and attention they gave this case.
‘We will now consider the board’s guidance and develop a response that is clear and proportionate. In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s accounts remain suspended.’
In its 11,000-word ruling, the board said that Trump ‘severely violated’ Facebook’s policies with his January 6 posts where he told rioters: ‘We love you, you’re very special.’
It also said he ‘created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible’ by constantly claiming he was the victim of election fraud – which the board said was an ‘an unfounded narrative’.
‘As president, Mr. Trump had a high level of influence. The reach of his posts was large, with 35 million followers on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram.
‘Given the seriousness of the violations and the ongoing risk of violence, Facebook was justified in suspending Mr. Trump’s accounts on January 6 and extending that suspension on January 7,’ the decision reads in part.
‘However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an ‘indefinite’ suspension.
‘It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored,’ the decision says.
The board said that by transferring the decision to its members, Facebook ‘seeks to avoid its responsibilities.
‘The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.’
Trump hasn’t been able to post anything on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter since January 6
The ban on Trump was the first time the company had ever blocked a politician or world leader from using the site and the decision threw up a major question of Silicon Valley’s and the power it wields over free speech.
On the left, critics blamed Trump for the Capitol riot and demanded he be permanently removed.
On the right, fans and followers of the former President saw it as another step by Facebook and big tech – which is famously liberal – to squash conservative voices and stunt support for Republican candidates.
Trump himself has not yet indicated if he wants to return to the site. On Tuesday, the day before the decision, he launched his own blog-like section of his Save America website.
The platform – From The Desk of Donald J. Trump – is where he can directly share messages with fans, like he used to. Crucially, people can share the posts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, even though Trump is banned from the sites.
Twitter permanently banned him after the riot.
Former President Donald Trump shown earlier this month
On Tuesday, CFO Ned Segal said they would not be reinstating him no matter what the oversight board’s decision was.
‘Well, there has been no changes to anything we have shared in the past around the former president’s account.
‘When you step back and think about our policies, we want to work hard to be consistent, to be transparent so people know exactly what to expect from us. We don’t have an oversight board like that. Our team is accountable for the decisions that we make.
‘There is no changes to anything we have talked about in the past,’ he told Yahoo Finance Live.
Of course one of the one of the favorite artists, so to speak, on the part of some Twitter users was President Trump, who is no longer on the platform, at least not right now,
Facebook followed suit then, amid widespread criticism of the decision, turned it over the oversight board to rule on whether or not he should be censored.
The board is meant to be impartial and independent; Facebook cannot overrule it, but it pays the salaries of everyone on the board.
It took months to announce its first decisions in January. Of five cases, it overturned Facebook’s decision in four and upheld one.
Trump’s case is by far the most high profile. After he was banned, the board received 9,000 public complaints from people saying Facebook had overstepped its authority.
Before announcing the decision, the board tweeted a ‘reminder’ of how it processes cases on Monday.
First, it selects the cases to decide on based on what affects the highest number of people.
Five members then deliberate. They base their decision on whether or not the user has violated any terms of service.
Then, the five-person panel speaks with the user and with Facebook, before delivering a draft decision to the rest of the board.
A final decision is then posted on its website. Facebook can respond to the decision within thirty days, and it has just seven days to implement the decisions.
The decision on Wednesday was hotly anticipated.
Politicians, free speech experts and activists around the world are watching the decision closely.
It has implications not only for Trump but for tech companies, world leaders and people across the political spectrum – many of whom have wildly conflicting views of the proper role for technology companies when it comes to regulating online speech and protecting people from abuse and misinformation.
Whether or not Trump will actually want to return to the site remains unclear.
After an initial period of quietness, he started emailing out statements in the form of press releases to journalists and subscribers several weeks ago.
Then on Tuesday, he launched his communications platform – From The Desk of Donald Trump.
His spokesman Jason Miller has insisted it is not a social media website – though Trump has hinted that he may launch one of those too.
‘President Trump´s website is a great resource to find his latest statements and highlights from his first term in office, but this is not a new social media platform.
‘We´ll have additional information coming on that front in the very near future,’ Miller said.
He has also spoken in interviews about running again in 2024 but hasn’t formally announced yet.
During his presidency, one of his biggest fights against Silicon Valley and the power it wields over the world.
He was among Republicans who thought the companies, particularly Facebook and Google, have too much power and influence over every day Americans.
Former President Donald Trump launched a webpage, www.DonaldJTrump.com/desk, which allows supporters to share the statements Trump has been emailing to the press to their social media platforms
The former president unveiled the website where only he can upload content, and doesn’t let users interact, as he teased to supporters they will be ‘very, very happy’ when they hear his decision about running for the White House again
By banning him, Twitter and Facebook played into that rhetoric and only enthused his fans and followers who have long believed that he is unfairly censored by the media and left-leaning big tech.
Facebook went one step further by then banning an interview he took part in with his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, from its sites.
The interview was for Lara’s online show – The Right View with Lara Trump – which has a huge conservative following on Instagram and Facebook.
It was the first on-camera interview Trump gave after leaving office.
But Facebook scrubbed videos of it from Lara’s page, telling her it was also banning ‘the voice of Trump’ from its platforms.
Phone interviews he gave to FOX and other major news outlets were allowed to stay online.
FACEBOOK’S ‘SUPREME COURT’: THE 20 OVERSIGHT BOARD MEMBERS
Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei – A human rights advocate who works on women’s rights, media freedom and access to information issues across Africa at the Open Society Initiative for West Africa.
Evelyn Aswad – A University of Oklahoma College of Law professor who formerly served as a senior State Department lawyer and specializes in the application of international human rights standards to content moderation issues
Endy Bayuni – A journalist who twice served as the editor-in-chief of The Jakarta Post, and helps direct a journalists’ association that promotes excellence in the coverage of religion and spirituality.
Catalina Botero Marino, co-chair – A former U.N. special rapporteur for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States who now serves as dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law.
Katherine Chen – A communications scholar at the National Chengchi University who studies social media, mobile news and privacy, and a former national communications regulator in Taiwan.
Nighat Dad – A digital rights advocate who offers digital security training to women in Pakistan and across South Asia to help them protect themselves against online harassment, campaigns against government restrictions on dissent, and received the Human Rights Tulip Award.
Jamal Greene, co-chair – A Columbia Law professor who focuses on constitutional rights adjudication and the structure of legal and constitutional argument.
Pamela Karlan – A Stanford Law professor and Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and First Amendment cases, and serves as a member of the board of the American Constitution Society. Karlan had been asked to describe the differences between a U.S. president and a king during Trump’s impeachment hearing when she brought up the first son’s name. ‘The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,’ Karlan told lawmakers. She later apologized.
Tawakkol Karman – A Nobel Peace Prize laureate who used her voice to promote nonviolent change in Yemen during the Arab Spring, and was named as one of ‘History’s Most Rebellious Women’ by Time magazine.
Maina Kiai – A director of Human Rights Watch’s Global Alliances and Partnerships Program and a former U.N. special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association who has decades of experience advocating for human rights in Kenya.
Sudhir Krishnaswamy – A vice chancellor of the National Law School of India University who co-founded an advocacy organization that works to advance constitutional values for everyone, including LGBTQ+ and transgender persons, in India.
Ronaldo Lemos – A technology, intellectual property and media lawyer who co-created a national internet rights law in Brazil, co-founded a nonprofit focused on technology and policy issues, and teaches law at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
Michael McConnell, co-chair – A former U.S. federal circuit judge who is now a constitutional law professor at Stanford, an expert on religious freedom, and a Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in a wide range of First Amendment cases involving freedom of speech, religion and association.
Julie Owono – A digital rights and anti-censorship advocate who leads Internet Sans Frontières and campaigns against internet censorship in Africa and around the world.
Emi Palmor – A former director general of the Israeli Ministry of Justice who led initiatives to address racial discrimination, advance access to justice via digital services and platforms and promote diversity in the public sector.
Alan Rusbridger – A former editor-in-chief of The Guardian who transformed the newspaper into a global institution and oversaw its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Edward Snowden disclosures. He was editor of the left-leaning Guardian newspaper for 20 years, which was chosen by Edward Snowden to publicise his NSA leaks and campaigned against the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.
András Sajó – A former judge and vice president of the European Court of Human Rights who is an expert in free speech and comparative constitutionalism.
John Samples – A public intellectual who writes extensively on social media and speech regulation, advocates against restrictions on online expression, and helps lead a libertarian think tank.
Left to right: Nicolas Suzor and Helle Thorning-Schmidt
Nicolas Suzor – A Queensland University of Technology Law School professor who focuses on the governance of social networks and the regulation of automated systems, and has published a book on internet governance.
Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair – A former prime minister of Denmark who repeatedly took stands for free expression while in office and then served as CEO of Save the Children. The social democrat was elected in 2011 on a pro-immigration, high tax manifesto before losing power in 2015.