Zuckerberg says Facebook won't moderate Trump differently once he leaves office but spokesman says he'll be fact-checked; Twitter will end special treatment

Many world leaders generally have wider latitude on Twitter and Facebook because their comments and posts are regarded as political speech …

New York Times 2020-11-18 Kate Conger

Context & Ripple Effects

The stance marks a reversal for Zuckerberg, who in May rejected Twitter's move to fact-check Trump, arguing private platform companies shouldn't be arbiters of truth — yet a spokesman now says Trump will be fact-checked like any other user once he leaves office. Twitter had already moved first, announcing days earlier that Trump's special treatment around offensive or misleading content expires in January if he lost.

The shift lands months after a [[a:955562|Facebook-commissioned audit warned that holding Trump to a different standard sets a troubling precedent]] and values free speech above civil rights, and after Facebook began weighing new election-result rules. Within half a year, sources reported Facebook planned to go further and end the policy shielding politicians from moderation rules entirely.

First-order effects

Trump's Facebook posts lose their world-leader latitude immediately upon his leaving office — the company says he'll be subject to fact-checks under standard rules, while Twitter's carve-out lapses in January.
Zuckerberg's own 'not the arbiters of truth' argument from May is effectively set aside for a former president, putting enforcement consistency above the free-speech posture he defended publicly.

Second-order effects

The audit's civil-rights critique converts into a policy lever: rather than merely advising, it pressures Facebook toward scrapping the politician-shielding exemption altogether, as later reporting confirmed.
Other world leaders' accounts lose their precedent cover — with both platforms narrowing the political-speech exception for Trump specifically, the broader carve-out becomes harder to defend.

Third-order effects

If the pattern holds, platforms converge on a single moderation rulebook where account status no longer buys latitude, with fact-check labels and standard enforcement replacing bespoke world-leader treatment.
Civil-rights audits shift from advisory documents to structural drivers of moderation policy, giving advocacy groups a durable mechanism to challenge political carve-outs.

The trend: Major platforms are dismantling world-leader carve-outs in favor of one moderation rulebook, with fact-checking displacing political-speech exceptions.

Discussion

@dseetharaman Deepa Seetharaman on x
WSJ reporter tweets an image of a prompt she received from Facebook, which suggested she missed a “popular post” from Trump claiming he won the election
@andymstone Andy Stone on x
@ceciliakang That's not quite right. What mark said is there's only a small set of policies from which candidates or elected officials are exempt, namely fact-checking. And as our policies say here, former elected officials are subject to fact-checking: https://www.facebook.com/.…
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
such a great example of how a platform's true goals/priorities always shine through https://twitter.com/...
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
One of the takeaways from this hearing is that Twitter and Facebook are increasingly staking out diverging positions on federal policies for content moderation: https://www.cnn.com/...
@ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x
would a former elected official's account be suspended for violating your terms? say the official spread disinformation, incited violence, or harmed election integrity ... how many violations until said person is suspended? https://twitter.com/...
@fightfortheftr @fightfortheftr on x
This perfectly sums it up. The problem with social media is not that it allows people to speak. It's that Big Tech's surveillance capitalist algorithms artificially amplify some of the worst content on the Internet in a neverending quest for “engagement” https://www.wired.com/...…
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
Of course, this raises the same question for Trump that applies to Bannon: How many times can a normal user violate Facebook's policies before being banned? Zuckerberg has been rather evasive about this.
@kevinroose Kevin Roose on x
@andymstone @ceciliakang what if, purely hypothetically, a former elected official declared a new candidacy immediately after leaving office?
@margarita Margarita Clara Noriega on x
“You might have missed this” — this being an inaccurate statement on social media https://twitter.com/...
@nytimes @nytimes on x
Twitter, which has let President Trump post content that violates its rules, will no longer make policy exceptions for him after he leaves office, Jack Dorsey said: “If an account suddenly is not a world leader anymore, that particular policy goes away.” https://www.nytimes.com/.…
@meganclasen Megan Clasen on x
Seems like if you are marking posts as inaccurate factually you shouldn't be promoting them? https://twitter.com/...
@nytimes @nytimes on x
In contrast, Facebook won't change the way it moderates President Trump's posts when he leaves office, Mark Zuckerberg said. Facebook has labeled a few of Trump's posts since Election Day, but generally takes a hands-off approach. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@notstevenwhite Steven White on x
I'm just a simple APD scholar, but the extent to which social media algorithms actively work to expose you to right-wing misinformation seems bad https://twitter.com/...
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
This is big: President Trump's social media accounts could face even greater enforcement when he leaves office, Dorsey and Zuckerberg both said, citing company policies that protect his conduct. https://twitter.com/...
@kellymakena Makena Kelly on x
This hearing feels different. Maybe the senators are less-prepared, but I can't help but see it as a post-election shift. GOP threatened all kinds of legislative and regulatory action on bias throughout the election. Now that Biden won, they want to talk about self-regulation.
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Asked about its Silicon Valley-based employees' generally leftward political leanings, Zuckerberg says it means “we need to be careful and intentional internally to make sure that bias doesn't seep into decisions that we make.”
@craigsilverman Craig Silverman on x
Zuckerberg splitting hairs by saying FB doesn't “overturn fact-checks.” It removed fact-check strikes from pages/accounts to prevent them frm being punished. This happened repeatedly w/out knowledge of checkers. It undercuts their work & has no disclosure: https://www.buzzfeednew…
@oliverdarcy Oliver Darcy on x
Per @nytimes, 53 of the 72 questions Republicans asked today of Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey wee about content moderation. 37 were specifically about the supposed censoring of conservatives & ideological makeup of their employees. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x
important piece by @evelyndouek on @YouTube — a major vector for disinfo — avoiding scrutiny by being opaque & keeping quiet. https://www.wired.com/...
@mrmichaelburkes @mrmichaelburkes on x
Who'd like to see Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey arrested?
@nigel_farage Nigel Farage on x
Take a bow @SenTedCruz. Shows the total lack of impartiality from Twitter's Jack Dorsey. https://twitter.com/...
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
Congress should do what they did when Google and parent Alphabet's CEOs avoided testimony, invite for a solo appearance. https://twitter.com/...
@tayhatmaker Taylor Hatmaker on x
i mentioned this in my pre-hearing post too and i'm also very curious... how does Susan Wojcicki totally escape scrutiny on this stuff? https://www.wired.com/...
@clarajeffery Clara Jeffery on x
A goodly portion of all that is undermining our democracy can be directly laid at Mark Zuckerberg's feet.
@rickwebb Rick Webb on x
It's insanity that YouTube keeps getting a free pass in these hearings. https://twitter.com/...
@cbsnews @cbsnews on x
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says the company labeled more than 300,000 misleading election tweets between October 27 and November 11, representing about 0.2% of all election-related tweets. That includes tweets by President Trump https://www.cbsnews.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@wired @wired on x
Opinion: YouTube's general public relations and governance policy over the years has been to be more opaque, keep its head down, keep quiet, and let the other platforms take the heat. It's generally gotten away with it https://www.wired.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Zuckerberg's persistent attachment to neutrality as a goal leads inevitably to “both sides” thinking, and precludes even a conversation about what Facebook actually values and how it could achieve that. In the absence of any values, what you have is an amoral profit machine.
@daithaigilbert David Gilbert on x
Zuckerberg talks about Myanmar, and as usual lists the things his company has done in the wake of the Rohingya genocide in which Facebook was complicit But the thing it, in the wake of Myanmar's recent election, hate speech is still flourishing on FB. https://www.frontiermyanmar.…
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
Hawley is enjoying grilling Zuckerberg directly!
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
Sen. Hawley is up, and presents materials to Zuckerberg given to Hawley by a “facebook whistleblower” that came to his office. Says an internal platform called “Tasks” is used by “Censorship teams” internally. Zuckerberg disagrees with the characterization of the tools.
@ceciliakang @ceciliakang on x
Zuckerberg, when asked about Addiction to FB: he says studies are inconclusive and that the vast majority of people don't believe it to be addictive. Dorsey, same question, moves a little closer to a real answer. Says (social media) can be addictive.
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
So far @BenSasse has been the best at recognizing this whole hearing is stupid and that content moderation is impossible to do well. But he still gets hung up on “consistency” without realizing that when you're moderating so much content consistency is impossible as well.
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
And @jack highlights that they do not hire based on ideology. They don't ask employees about their political ideology, but they focus on their content moderation policies, and the outcomes of those policies.
@technology @technology on x
Zuckerberg says Facebook has banned 250 White supremacist organizations from the platform and treats them the same as other terrorist groups https://www.bloomberg.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@rmac18 @rmac18 on x
But Sen Durbin doesn't ask about this and lets Zuckerberg skate by with his previous explanation. It seems like when a Senator gets to the cusp of asking a meaningful question, they pivot to something else for fear of losing their time.
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
Now @SenMikeLee is lying, and claiming that while he understands “mistakes” happen in moderation, they only happen on one side of the aisle. This is wrong. It just reveals that Lee lives in a bubble where he doesn't hear about the mistakes on the other side.
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
So now we have @SenMikeLee ridiculously claiming that Twitter/FB moderation practices violate FTC regulations because they claim “neutrality” (they don't) & they moderate unfairly based on ideology (they also don't). This is idiotic, Senator.
@rmac18 @rmac18 on x
Zuckerberg asked why Bannon's account was not taken down for advocating for the beheading of government officials. As a counterpoint, he says that terrorist content leads to accounts being banned immediately. I'm confused. Is advocating for political beheadings not terrorism?
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Sen. Josh Hawley is often billed as the Republicans' rising star on tech policy, so it's a little distressing that he insists on characterizing Facebook's hate speech and site integrity teams as its “censorship teams.”
@slpng_giants @slpng_giants on x
As we review today's testimony from @facebook and @Twitter, remember that both companies continually bent their rules for years to keep this monster on their platforms and monetize him. That's who they are. https://twitter.com/...
@caitlin__kelly Caitlin Kelly on x
“Today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg covered a lot of ground, in the sense that a pot of chili dumped on the kitchen floor covers a lot of ground.” — @GiladEdelman https://www.wired.com/...
@senjohnkennedy John Kennedy on x
If Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg don't employ staff to block them from reading certain material, why don't they let their users also exercise their own good judgment without censorship? https://twitter.com/...
@marshablackburn Sen. Marsha Blackburn on x
If Mark Zuckerberg believes that people should not be “discriminated against because of political beliefs,” then why does @Facebook regularly censor conservatives? https://thefederalist.com/...
@amy_siskind Amy Siskind on x
Four years ago Zuckerberg was flirting with the idea of running for president....as a Democrat. What an incredible, and well-deserved fall from grace. All the money in the world can't buy you a soul! https://twitter.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Zuckerberg is practically begging the Senate to regulate social media content moderation so that the company can stop getting vilified by one side or the other for every decision it makes and point to someone else's rulebook instead. https://twitter.com/...
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
This hearing is intolerable because no one seems interested in advertising. Here's a hint of what is driving Twitter's and Facebook's behavior. They do all of the bad stuff they do FOR THE MONEY. If you want to change their behavior change the business model. This isn't hard. htt…
@stevenlevy Steven Levy on x
Durbin's vague question—hey, guys what do you really think of 230?—gets a thoughtful answer from Zuckerberg. Wrong to put us into boxes of either publisher or telco. We're different and need new rules.
@slpng_giants @slpng_giants on x
What is clear in this hearing, and all of the previous hearings, is that nothing Zuckerberg or Dorsey say can be trusted and that they expect the American public to believe it all without evidence. Even when there's evidence to the contrary. We need independent oversight. Now. ht…
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
There's another Section 230 hearing with @jack and Mark Zuckerberg. The reason it's boring and useless is because the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't do any work. By contrast, @davidcicilline's staff went over 1M+ docs to understand the business models. Do the work!
@issielapowsky Issie Lapowsky on x
Both Dorsey and Zuck reiterate that they support change to Section 230. TBH, a fairly reasoned round of questioning from Graham that covered a lot of common ground around the need for transparency in content moderation.
@ghoshd7 Dipayan Ghosh on x
Zuckerberg said in the hearing today that he does not want Facebook's products to be addictive. It is THE EXACT opposite. Words are cheap.
@pemalevy Pema Levy on x
Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress that Facebook is not designed to be addictive and he doesn't want his products to be addictive. Not mentioned: the more engagement, the more money they make.
@rachblevins Rachel Blevins on x
Zuckerberg also appears to be joining us from his doomsday bunker, adding pops of color with a curtain and a fake plant. Out of all of the legitimate questions that are blatantly obvious, Lindsey Graham literally just asked him if he believes Facebook is “addictive.” https://twit…
@drdenagrayson @drdenagrayson on x
Mark Zuckerberg is LYING. #Facebook is specifically designed to be addictive. Engineers give users just enough positive feedback to want to return, while denying them enough pleasure so that they don't get satiated. #DeleteFacebook https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://twit…
@cbsnews @cbsnews on x
Lindsey Graham compares social media like Facebook & Twitter to tobacco, suggests government might need to alter approach: “The more we realized about the addictive nature of tobacco, the more we changed our mind about telling the public about the product” https://www.cbsnews.com…
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
This is a nuanced point but I've long argued that a lot of Facebook's problems stem from Zuckerberg's naive view of “neutrality” as a goal and “bias” as something that can be stamped out. In journalism terms, Zuck is espousing what @jayrosen_nyu calls the “view from nowhere.”
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
lol https://www.theguardian.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
Oh c'mon. Zuckerberg deflected on whether his platform may be addictive. He knows full well they've made design decisions with that goal in mind. Better answer from Dorsey to just acknowledge the platform risk and need to combat it.
@karissabe Karissa Bell on x
Dorsey says the area Twitter can have the most impact is increasing transparency around algorithms & give people a choice. Graham asks Zuckerberg if he agrees and there's a long pause, um, and. Zuckerberg side-steps the question and starts talking about FB's community standards
@mikeelgan Mike Elgan on x
Everything Zuckerberg says here is a lie. Facebook has worked hard to make Facebook as addictive as possible, and the research is clear and conclusive on the addictive nature of social networks. https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles