Nick Clegg, who shaped Facebook's handling of Donald Trump, will lead the final decision-making process after the Oversight Board handed it back to Facebook

New York Times :

New York Times 2021-05-06

Discussion

@ceciliakang @ceciliakang on x
Nick Clegg said FB should not finally decide on Trump. But the board said FB should. Now Nick is leading the final decision for FB. The world is a circle 🙃 Profile on the British politician at the center of Trump ban: w/ @satariano https://www.nytimes.com/...
@satariano Adam Satariano on x
A few other details @ceciliakang and I picked up reporting this story about Nick Clegg, whose influence inside Facebook surprised me, especially on Trump and American political issues. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@larakiara Lara O'Reilly on x
Interesting NYT profile of Facebook vp of global affairs Nick Clegg - includes the nugget that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair advised him to “go for it” when Clegg was deciding whether or not to take the Facebook job https://www.nytimes.com/...
@nicoleperlroth Nicole Perlroth on x
What was the point of this whole exercise again? https://twitter.com/...
@dancharvey @dancharvey on x
A photo of Clegg, Sandberg, Kaplan, and Zuckerberg should feature on the Wikipedia entry for “Too little, too late.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@dmccabe David McCabe on x
This is a telling quote from a Facebook executive in @satariano and @ceciliakang's new profile of Nick Clegg, former British deputy PM and the company's top policy person. https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@constans @constans on x
@mattyglesias Because he squandered that opportunity and didn't pull the plug on Cameron's austerity, he got to become a facebook executive
@ceciliakang @ceciliakang on x
Good reminder of the limits to Facebook's acceptance of criticism https://twitter.com/...
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
Well this is all very fascinating https://www.nytimes.com/...
@mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias on x
Didn't Nick Clegg squander a once-in-a-century opportunity to restore his political party to relevance? https://twitter.com/...
@mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias on x
If only he'd taken Professor Vipond's Introduction to Canadian Politics class like I did, Clegg would have known that in a Westminster-style system there's nothing wrong with letting the plurality party form a minority government.
@bbcworld @bbcworld on x
“In American politics we talk a lot about Republicans and Democrats but we don't talk enough about the Lib Dems. And, as it turns out, they're pivotal” On #Americast, @maitlis explains how Nick Clegg finds himself at the centre of the Trump Facebook row https://bbc.in/...
@welsh_shaun Shaun on x
@nick_clegg @OversightBoard If someone is found to have encouraged and legitimised violence that led to the deaths of several people, can they expect a lifetime ban? I think that seems proportionate at the very least.
Vox Shirin Ghaffary on x
Here's just how much people have stopped talking about Trump on Facebook and Twitter
Vox Shirin Ghaffary on x
Trump is Facebook's problem, again
@gopleader Kevin McCarthy on x
Facebook is more interested in acting like a Democrat Super PAC than a platform for free speech and open debate. If they can ban President Trump, all conservative voices could be next. A House Republican majority will rein in big tech power over our speech.
@markmeadows Mark Meadows on x
If you're surprised by Facebook banning President Trump, you haven't been paying attention. It's just the latest page in the book of big tech coming after conservatives. And they won't stop. Which means it's past time to hold them accountable. Break them up.
@marshablackburn Sen. Marsha Blackburn on x
Facebook's decision to uphold its ban on President Donald Trump is extremely disappointing. It's clear that Mark Zuckerberg views himself as the arbiter of speech.
@tedcruz Ted Cruz on x
Had a great dinner tonight with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago. He's in great spirits! We spent the evening talking about working together to re-take the House & Senate in 2022. 🇺🇸🇺🇸 🇺🇸 https://twitter.com/...
@jaketapper Jake Tapper on x
Plenty of arguments to make about Facebook's decisions but this now-common response of “I don't like what this private company did so our public officials should use their government powers to punish them” is an interesting philosophical development https://twitter.com/...
@benshapiro Ben Shapiro on x
Facebook's Oversight Board says they were right to suspend Trump because he violated their rule “prohibiting praise or support of people engaged in violence.” Last year, nearly the entire media and Democratic Party praised people engaged in the most costly riots in US history.
@rebleber Rebecca Leber on x
tech companies want to ward off regulation so they act like they can be autonomous governments with checks balances. except they're still a corporation where it's the bottom line that counts. https://twitter.com/...
@sivavaid @sivavaid on x
Reporters who are covering the @OversightBoard ruling this morning: Please remember that India is the largest audience for Facebook and that only 230 million of the 2.7 BILLION Facebook users live in the United States. And that Modi is much more powerful and popular than Trump.
@freedomhouse Freedom House on x
Content moderation is wickedly complex, so it's vital that companies follow best practices around proportionality, appeals, and transparency in their pursuit of safe, open platforms. Independent third parties also need better visibility into these decisions and processes. 4/5
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
And add this to my must-reads. Just as Facebook friendly narratives started to get pushed out, @Sulliview brings maximum truth and scorching heat to unlock everyone's common sense. So grateful. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@marietjeschaake Marietje Schaake on x
My views on the legitimacy of Facebook's Oversight Board ruling on Trump's Facebook megaphone do not depend on whether I agree or not. I have always argued social media companies need systemic and independent democratic oversight. That won't change with today's decision
@freedomhouse Freedom House on x
Tech companies have the power to shape political discourse - even outcomes - through policies and algorithms. We have seen the real, tangible impact of their power in the offline world. To address this reality, Facebook must ensure competent, ethical content moderation. 3/5
@alfonslopeztena Alfons Lpez Tena on x
The problem is Facebook — Lives depend on what unnamed, unelected people in a single corporation decide is acceptable speech, based on rules that were drawn up in secret and in response to situations no one could have envisaged https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...
@jgo4justice @jgo4justice on x
The Oversight Board has kicked Trump's suspension back to Facebook for another six month review. So tell me: why does the easiest decision ever (to take down a serial spreader of racism, lies and violence in violation of FB policies) take 10 months? #ChangeTheTerms
@freedomhouse Freedom House on x
A mix of self-regulation, increased competition, and state regulation is needed so that academic researchers, tech watchdogs, and nonpartisan entities can evaluate tech companies' impact on democracy and foster a healthier, safer, more open information environment online. 5/5
@fboversight @fboversight on x
“This is going to apply to a lot of countries that have faced systemic violence,” says @heidibeirich “We're going to see more genocides, more distortions of democracies. The stakes are so high and it's so ridiculous that it is being decided in this way.” https://twitter.com/...
@bucksexton Buck Sexton on x
Not a single journalist or politician was ever kicked off Facebook for trying to negate the result of the 2016 election with 4 years of absurd, reckless Russia collusion lies In case you were wondering about the ethics of our internet overlords
@tomcottonar Tom Cotton on x
Is there anything more Orwellian than Facebook's “independent oversight board,” stocked with left-wing academics, deciding issues of free speech?
@alibreland Ali Breland on x
facebook wanted some oversight, just not *too much* oversight https://www.motherjones.com/ ...
@mikepompeo Mike Pompeo on x
Our freedom of speech is under attack in America. This shouldn't be a partisan issue — but, unfortunately, the Left only supports free speech if what you have to say comports with their liberal ideology. If Facebook and Twitter can ban President Trump, they'll ban you too.
@sulliview @sulliview on x
Facebook's oversight board whiffed. Trump deserves a permanent exile. ... My column https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@nikkihaley Nikki Haley on x
Facebook and Twitter ban a former U.S. President, yet, some of the world's worst dictators, terrorists, and bad actors still have a platform. This is a gross double standard and it's why most Americans don't trust big tech.
@persily Nate Persily on x
For me, so far, the most interesting passage is: https://twitter.com/...
@jdvance1 J.D. Vance on x
The Facebook oversight board has more power than the United Nations. Conservatives were right to worry about giving our sovereignty away to a multinational institution. We just picked the wrong one.
@brianstelter Brian Stelter on x
Mark Meadows' immediate reaction to Trump remaining banned: “It's a sad day for America. It's a sad day for Facebook, 'cuz I can tell you, a number of members of Congress are now looking at, do they break up Facebook? Do they make sure that they don't have a monopoly?” https://tw…
@oversightboard Oversight Board on x
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
@jim_jordan Rep. Jim Jordan on x
Break them up. https://twitter.com/...
@oversightboard Oversight Board on x
Facebook cannot make up the rules as it goes, and anyone concerned about its power should be concerned about allowing this. Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook is essential for ensuring the company treats users fairly. This is what the Board stands for.
@tedcruz Ted Cruz on x
Disgraceful. For every liberal celebrating Trump's social media ban, if the Big Tech oligarchs can muzzle the former President, what's to stop them from silencing you? https://twitter.com/...
@brhodes Ben Rhodes on x
You know your country is way off course when the lead story is whether the world's largest disinformation platform run by an unaccountable mega-billionaire will allow a reality show narcissist who attempted to overthrow democracy to post childish insults of people online.
@frankpallone Rep. Frank Pallone on x
Every day, Facebook is amplifying and promoting disinformation and misinformation, and the structure and rules governing its oversight board generally seem to ignore this disturbing reality. It's clear that real accountability will only come with legislative action.
@sachabaroncohen Sacha Baron Cohen on x
Overlooked in today's news: Mark—even your oversight board says Facebook shouldn't have special exemptions for politicians because they “have a greater power to cause harm than other people.” Facebook—stop protecting politicians who spread lethal lies! #StopHateForProfit https://…
@markwarner Mark Warner on x
We saw former President Trump utilize Facebook and other social media platforms to sow misinformation, bully opponents, and spread anti-democratic vitriol. While this is a welcome step by Facebook, the reality is that bad actors still have the ability to weaponize the platform.
@frankpallone Rep. Frank Pallone on x
Donald Trump has played a big role in helping Facebook spread disinformation, but whether he's on the platform or not, Facebook and other social media platforms with the same business model will find ways to highlight divisive content to drive advertising revenues.
@colorofchange @colorofchange on x
Today, @Facebook's Oversight Board's ruling was pure theatre. While they upheld Trump's temporary ban from the platform for now, the Joel Kaplan-led Facebook policy team will make the ultimate decision in November, essentially opening the door for Trump's return to the platform.
@elisugarman Eli Sugarman on x
We prioritize user voice (given FB's power), so it's positive that Mr. Trump submitted a user statement in this case. Unfortunately, it is replete w/ falsehoods e.g. the attack on the Capitol was clearly “influenced, and most probably ignited by outside forces.” (Sec. 5) 4/15
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
Trump statement, over email (not his new blog) via @maggieNYT https://twitter.com/...
@elisugarman Eli Sugarman on x
In other words, there should be a forward-looking harm assessment (that complies with int'l law) to ensure no political leader is automatically reinstated who poses a serious risk. A minority (see Sec. 9) believes this should have been in the binding part of the decision. 23/25
@ggreenwald Glenn Greenwald on x
The fact that Facebook has courts that decide who can and can't be heard on monopolistic speech platforms is tyrannical. Here's a reminder that leaders around the world — many of whom dislike Trump — condemned Facebook's removal of Trump: https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@hawleymo Josh Hawley on x
Here's a real life example of the tyranny of #BigTech - a fake @Facebook court decides @Facebook can do whatever @Facebook wants, in this case, suspending Donald Trump w/o process or standards. That's what monopolies do. Break them up https://oversightboard.com/...
@kurtwagner8 Kurt Wagner on x
In a weird twist, Facebook's Oversight Board basically told Facebook: Don't send us your difficult decision — make it yourself! “...Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities.” https://twitter.com/...
@emptywheel @emptywheel on x
Shorter Facebook: Trump glorified a violent insurrection as it was occurring. https://www.oversightboard.com/ ...
@oversightboard Oversight Board on x
We call on Facebook to ensure that if a head of state or high government official repeatedly posts messages that pose a risk of harm under international human rights norms, the company should either suspend the account for a set period or delete it.
@nickconfessore Nick Confessore on x
The fact that this private corporate administrative decision is being covered as something akin to a Supreme Court ruling — rightly so, I think — is the best illustration I can imagine of the sheer power Facebook has achieved over the public square. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@oversightboard Oversight Board on x
Within 6 months of today, Facebook must review this matter and decide a new penalty that reflects its rules, the severity of the violation, and prospect of future harm. Facebook can either impose a time-limited suspension or account deletion.
@dickc Dick Costolo on x
This is literally the opposite of what every company must do. It's like saying “hey, you can't just amend the Constitution as you go”....platforms working to battle new misinformation campaigns, new threats, new abuse, MUST make up the rules as they go. https://twitter.com/...
@repadamschiff Adam Schiff on x
There's no Constitutional protection for using social media to incite an insurrection. Trump is willing to do anything for himself no matter the danger to our country. His big lies have cost America dearly. And until he stops, Facebook must ban him. Which is to say, forever. http…
@nick_clegg Nick Clegg on x
We thank the @OversightBoard 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. https://about.fb.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
“Anyone who is concerned about Facebook's excessive concentration of power should welcome the board telling Facebook that it cannot create new, unwritten rules when it suits them.” —Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair of the board
@mollyjongfast Molly Jong-Fast on x
Just ban him forever https://twitter.com/...
@rashadrobinson Rashad Robinson on x
The Facebook “Oversight” Board decided to uphold Trump's suspension for another six months. But let's break down what this really means. First of all, even the Board says that Facebook is trying to “avoid its responsibilities” — which is what we've been saying all along. https://…
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
This is really so much badly framed bullshit. This is a decision to make no decision about how to deal with what were clear violations at a dangerous time by a single persistently trolling individual. Disgraceful indeed, though more for the exhausting manipulation going on here. …
@repcawthorn Rep. Madison Cawthorn on x
Big-tech tyranny continues to censor and ban conservatives every day. Under a Republican majority, those days are over. I support @GOPLeader in our effort to reign in the power of #BigTech. https://twitter.com/...
@vdavez V David Zvenyach on x
I can't get out of my head that the Facebook Oversight Board has a larger budget than the US Supreme Court. $130M for the Oversight Board https://www.nytimes.com/... $108 for SCOTUS in FY21 https://www.uscourts.gov/...
@gzeromedia @gzeromedia on x
The decision not to allow Trump back on Facebook was decided by its own privately appointed board. Politically momentous decision, made with zero representative governance, or democracy. That is a sign of our times. @ianbremmer on World #In60Seconds: https://www.gzeromedia.com/wo…
@robbysoave Robby Soave on x
I think there are reasonable criticisms to be made of Facebook and moderation decisions, but conservatives increasingly default to absurd overreactions like this. https://twitter.com/...
@natesilver538 Nate Silver on x
There's definitely some tension between the notion of deplatforming Trump from Facebook and Twitter—a notion that is fairly popular among journalists, at least the ones who are most vocal about it—and the tendency by journalists to amplify his every utterance. https://twitter.com…
@atrupar Aaron Rupar on x
“We're not going to have any comment on the future of the former president's social media platform” — Jen Psaki https://twitter.com/...
@remmy_robertson Remmy Robertson on x
@TomCottonAR @TomCottonAR 1. Facebook is a private company. 2. Trump agreed to Facebooks terms and conditions. 3. Trump violated those terms multiple times resulting him being banned. 4. Conservatives are not being silenced. 5. Conservatives are trying to silence private companie…
@anncoulter Ann Coulter on x
Good. Trump ran for office on the promise to build a wall (lying through his teeth), then frantically threw up 40 miles of new fence in the last few months before the Election. It would be like letting Bernie Madoff back on Facebook from prison. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@jimsteyer Jim Steyer on x
Misinformation and disinformation is still rampant, and a major threat to our democracy and to the well-being of kids and families. It must stop and the only way to protect our society is independent, democratically accountable oversight of Mark Zuckerberg and FB. #TrumpBanned
@fboversight @fboversight on x
RFOB Board Member @tribelaw appeared on @CBSNews 📽️Watch the full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@themaxburns Max Burns on x
CONSERVATIVES: “There's not even a formal process for these tech giants to determine who stays banned! It's tyranny!” ALSO CONSERVATIVES: “How dare Facebook build a formal process for determining who stays banned! It's tyranny!” https://twitter.com/...
@poniewozik James Poniewozik on x
Haha, fortunately we have no reason to believe THIS will ever happen https://twitter.com/...
@fboversight @fboversight on x
RFOB Board Member @shoshanazuboff appeared on @CBSNews 📽️Watch the full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@fboversight @fboversight on x
RFOB Founding Member @carolecadwalla appeared on @CNBC 📽️Watch the full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@rashadrobinson Rashad Robinson on x
In fact, this isn't even an “Oversight” Board at all. By their own admission, they asked Facebook to answer questions to inform their decision and the company flatout refused to address most of them. Just because FB uses the word “oversight,” that doesn't mean they understand it.
@ianbremmer Ian Bremmer on x
There is no legitimate news value in reposting Trump's random posts at this point. It's either residual emotional damage or clickbait. Neither serve the purpose of a free media or functional civil society. https://twitter.com/...
@jgo4justice @jgo4justice on x
Now is the time for Facebook to swiftly and decisively issue a permanent Trump ban.
@colorofchange @colorofchange on x
This is not enough. An external board can't replace policy enforcement and Facebook leadership has defended Trump time after time. If allowed back, he'll have free reign to stoke the flames of white nationalism and violence against Black people. Remember January 6th?
@fboversight @fboversight on x
@Moonalice @Channel4News RFOB Board Member Jessica Gonzalez @JGo4Justice appeared on @AP 📽️Watch the full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@jaredlholt Jared Holt on x
“Newsworthiness is a choice masquerading as an inevitability. There is no Hippocratic Oath for journalism that suggests we must amplify lies or provide our most shameless politicians with an endless supply of attention.” —⁦@cwarzel⁩ https://warzel.substack.com/ ...
@fboversight @fboversight on x
Next up, RFOB Board Member @shoshanazuboff appeared on @CNBC 📽️Watch the full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
This is the key issue today. Facebook won't even answer questions posed by its Facebook-mandated & appointed board about the role it played in Jan 6 insurrection. Everything else is spin & cover. The questions today are not for the Oversight Board. They're for @nick_clegg https:/…
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
So takeaway from today is that Facebook's early attempts to position the Oversight Board as a Supreme Court were at least partly successful (that's what $$$ buys you). But that myth was punctured today. Widespread derision that Facebook tried to pass off this decision...& failed …
@yaeleisenstat Yael Eisenstat on x
“Oversight Board” upholds Facebook's Trump ban, sort of. Punts it back as too punishing. Now can we return to a real issue: how to hold FB accountable for how its tools & business decisions helped spread conspiracy theories & contributed to planning+execution of an insurrection?
@danwootton Dan Wootton on x
Facebook's Oversight Board upholds Donald Trump's ban from the platform. A tech platform in San Francisco now has the power to withhold the free speech of the then-democratically elected leader of the free world. No matter what your politics, this decision is chilling.
@sites4congress Jeff Sites on x
@Jim_Jordan @JudiciaryGOP Jim Jordan loves railing against Big Tech on social media... but that hasn't stopped him from taking their money. The Swamp in Action!
@rashadrobinson Rashad Robinson on x
What's more likely — and even worse than today's circus — is that, by punting the decision on a permanent ban back to the policy team, the Board left the door open for Trump's return to the platform. This is because the policy team is led by right-wing operative Joel Kaplan.
@andymstone Andy Stone on x
Reaction from Facebook's @nick_clegg to today's @OversightBoard decision: “I hope over time what people... will acknowledge is that we are trying to hold the decisions that Facebook takes as a private company to the fullest possible account and to make it transparent...” https://…
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
So let's not give it the gravitas of a Supreme Court and realize it is a indeed glorified corporate advisory board of just 20 people is who have made a key decision for the rest of us. And with the obvious lack of contrition displayed by Trump this week, the past is prologue.
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
Can @nick_clegg please respond & provide an explanation for why Facebook refused to answer these questions? https://twitter.com/...
@oversightboard Oversight Board on x
The Board also found Facebook violated its own rules by imposing a suspension that was ‘indefinite.’ This penalty is not described in Facebook's content policies. It has no clear criteria and gives Facebook total discretion on when to impose or lift it.
@athertonkd Kelsey D. Atherton on x
“The idea for the Oversight Board came from Noah Feldman, a fifty-year-old professor at Harvard Law School, who has written a biography of James Madison and helped draft the interim Iraqi constitution. ” What. a. line. https://www.newyorker.com/...
@freedomhouse Freedom House on x
The oversight board has made, in our view, a reasonable decision: to uphold the suspension of Former President Trump's account while Facebook formulates a proportionate response to the inciting content for which he was originally suspended. 2/5
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
Keep mind as we wait that while the Facebook Oversight board is independent, it's paid for by Facebook with members handpicked by Facebook in a system essentially created by Facebook. It is a corporate advisory board with more power & fancier names, but with few if any critics.
@mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias on x
My main view on Facebook is that it's important to challenge GOP members to have specific policy remedies for what they are mad about, rather than let them park it on the “Facebook is unregulated but makes decisions based on fear of angering Republicans” equilibrium.
@guyverhofstadt Guy Verhofstadt on x
What happened on Capitol Hill should not be forgotten. Tech platforms and media should never again normalise extremism & lies. But self-regulation's not enough. We need to hold them to account ! https://twitter.com/...
@senblumenthal Richard Blumenthal on x
Donald Trump is no voiceless victim. He earned his suspension from Facebook by spreading dangerous, violence-inciting lies. Our nation is still living with the consequences of the deadly insurrection Trump incited, & there is a clear & present danger that he will do it again. htt…
@pinboard @pinboard on x
The Facebook Oversight Board is accountability cosplay, and treating it (or its decisions) seriously advances Facebook's goals of being a law unto itself. The fact that lawyers dominate the discussion around Facebook policies exacerbates the problem of lending false legitimacy
@mshannahmurphy Hannah Murphy on x
Will be intrigued to see Facebook's response to the oversight board request that it create a specific team to handle the moderation of political speech by influential users. This “should be insulated from political & economic interference, as well as undue influence”, it says 1/
@mshannahmurphy Hannah Murphy on x
It's been widely reported that Facebook's DC lobbyists (eg right-leaning Joel Kaplan) are in the room when it decide on certain cases - blurring the line somewhat between content policy and political policymaking 2/
@repjayapal Rep. Pramila Jayapal on x
Good. Appropriate. Necessary. He used the site to foment an insurrection, and he is still perpetuating the Big Lie. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
@mfidel999 I think so but I would like to be wrong
@jonathanvswan Jonathan Swan on x
The bottom line is Trump and his inner circle were hanging on this decision and view Facebook reinstatement as crucial to Trump's political comeback. Mostly because of its fundraising power. They submitted a lengthy written argument... 1/2 https://twitter.com/...
@jonathanvswan Jonathan Swan on x
to the Oversight Board and were cautiously optimistic that Trump would be re-platformed. And yes: his inner circle increasingly believes he will run in 2024. Long long way to go but that's where he's at now. And Facebook is crucial to their strategy as it was in 16 and 20.
@grimmelm James Grimmelmann on x
Are tweets by @OversightBoard approved by a majority of the Board? Because this is not an accurate summary of the relevant portion of its decision today and it editorializes in a way that the decision does not. https://twitter.com/...
@senwarren Elizabeth Warren on x
Facebook is a disinformation-for-profit machine that won't accept responsibility for its role in the safety of our democracy and people. Trump should be banned for good, but Facebook will continue to fumble with its power until Congress and antitrust regulators rein in Big Tech.
@public_citizen @public_citizen on x
lol https://twitter.com/...
@emilydreyfuss Emily Dreyfuss on x
@CaseyNewton my take is that the board heard the criticism that they were just pawns to let FB pass the buck to an external group and they tried to answer by making a half decision and putting the call back on FB
@ekp Ellen K. Pao on x
This rings true to me, but also is extremely generous. Not sure what else they expected when they signed up and saw the structure and lack of business operating experience on the board https://twitter.com/...
@caseynewton Casey Newton on x
It turns out that everyone's Trump decision take is just “what I already thought about Facebook” + “what I already thought about the Oversight Board”
@steve_vladeck Steve Vladeck on x
Yeah, no—the Facebook Oversight Board's decisions are not appealable to #SCOTUS. https://twitter.com/...
@votemarsha Marsha Blackburn on x
If Big Tech can ban the President of the United States, they can ban you. Join me in standing up to this bias censorship. https://www.nbcnews.com/...
@alexhern Alex Hern on x
A thought: The UK's forthcoming internet regulatory regime, implemented by the Online Safety Bill, could quite easily turn the Oversight Board's “recommendations” into legal requirements simply by enacting the principles in the bill. *That* would be spicy. https://twitter.com/...
@brianstelter Brian Stelter on x
“CONSERVATIVES CENSORED: FACEBOOK KEEPS TRUMP BAN” is the lead on Fox's 11am “news.” @HarrisFaulkner says “the silencing of conservatives online continues.”
@grimmelm James Grimmelmann on x
The FOB doesn't believe in indenting block quotes. I do! the FOB doesn't believe in title-casing section headings. I do! The FOB believes in italicizing block quotations. I don't! Really not a fan of the FOB's typographical choices here.
@grimmelm James Grimmelmann on x
First real question: what's the case's name? The FOB doesn't put parties' names or anything else in its metadata, just a case number. But following the usual legal citation standards, I think this is pretty clearly In re Trump.
@grimmelm James Grimmelmann on x
Observation: the FOB doesn't use a page <title> specific to each decision. You'd think a Facebook-established organization would be better at SEO. https://twitter.com/...
@grimmelm James Grimmelmann on x
The Facebook Oversight Board decision on Trump's account is out, which means it's time for me to edit this thing and kibbitz about the details. https://oversightboard.com/...
@elisugarman Eli Sugarman on x
But the majority preferred instead to make it non-binding. Thus, if FB chooses to give Mr. Trump a time-limited suspension (instead of a permanent ban) AND adopts the policy recommendation, Mr. Trump would not be reinstated until and unless he ceases to pose a serious risk. 24/25
@elisugarman Eli Sugarman on x
Sec. 6 of the decision summarizes what info @Facebook shared as part of the case file. This is a key part of any case decision because we rely on FB for critical information to explain its decisions, the context behind them, and other relevant/details considerations. 6/15
@elisugarman Eli Sugarman on x
Here's an interesting part, If FB determines that Mr. Trump's accounts should be restored, FB “should apply its rules to that decision, including any modifications made pursuant to the policy recommendations” in Sec. 10. But what modifications are we talking about? 20/25
@neil_chilson Neil Chilson on x
The Oversight Board decision is a useful stake in the ground for increased clarity and transparency. It offers early evidence that third-party governing bodies can assess social media company decisions in a way that increases transparency and shapes company policies. 5/5
@neil_chilson Neil Chilson on x
People (especially on the right) are treating the decision as a rubber stamp of FB's January decision. But the Oversight Board rightly holds Facebook accountable for issuing an indefinite suspension without clear rules or reasoning. That's worth praising. 2/5
@mtracey Michael Tracey on x
This weird quasi-judicial Facebook tribunal actually denounces FB's punishment of Trump. “It was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension,” the tribunal declares. Journalists who cheered the penalty must be furious…
@gaberivera Gabe Rivera on x
One thing that both https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ desk and https://oversightboard.com/news/ agree on: They don't need an RSS feed!
@brianstelter Brian Stelter on x
Americans are, unsurprisingly, split on whether Trump should be barred from social media: “Some 49% of U.S. adults say Trump's accounts should be permanently banned from social media, while half say they should not be,” Pew says https://www.pewresearch.org/ ...
@pewresearch @pewresearch on x
95% of conservative Republicans believe Donald Trump's accounts should not be permanently banned from social media, but that share is lower among moderate and liberal Republicans (77%). https://www.pewresearch.org/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@daphnehk Daphne Keller on x
Sorry, here's the list of questions FB declined to answer. I had the wrong image before. https://twitter.com/...
@persily Nate Persily on x
3 we now learn more about how the Board interacts with FB - that it asked 46 questions of FB, most of which were answered, but some of which were not, based on relevance, privacy or other concerns. FB now knows that its refusal to answer questions will be noted in decisions.
@persily Nate Persily on x
4 On the merits, it is easy for the Board (or anyone) to say an incitement standard (or a glorification of violence) standard is too vague. But really, most incitement standards are too vague. It is difficult to specify “clear and present dangers” in advance, as Bd recognizes
@persily Nate Persily on x
1 the Board continues to ground its decisions in international human rights law. This is both understandable and perhaps inevitable given the charter. However, I think this approach is fundamentally misguided: Facebook is not a government and the newsfeed is not a public square
@persily Nate Persily on x
On the @OversightBoard decision: Although everyone will be paying attention to the bottom line, which seems like a reasonable Solomonic outcome, the most important issue for me is how this decision institutionalizes the board and its powers vis a vis Facebook, going forward...
@persily Nate Persily on x
2 the Board now has expanded the range of powers it possesses. Not only will it affirm or overturn FB decisions, it can issue interim decisions and request that Facebook come back to rejustify its decisions. It also has asked FB to do the following: https://twitter.com/...
@jaredlholt Jared Holt on x
Facebook Oversight Board spent months deliberating Trump's ban and the best they could come up with was an effective “nose goes”
@oversightboard Oversight Board on x
Finally, we urged Facebook to conduct a review into its contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and political tensions that led to the events of January 6. This should look at Facebook's design and policy choices that may allow its platform to be abused.
@issielapowsky Issie Lapowsky on x
Not BIG big like what most of us expected, but big in that it's something Facebook could point to in the future if it wants to at least temporarily disable another global leader's account who poses the same risk.
@issielapowsky Issie Lapowsky on x
It's getting buried but seems to me the board actually is setting precedent here for Facebook about using the risk of real world harm as a justification for at least temporarily silencing a head of state. They've definitively said Facebook was right about that. Seems big to me?
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
Galaxy Brain this morning is about Trump's blog, which is garbage. But there's one way that the poorly designed loophole can succeed: If journalists, politicos, and cable news producers screenshot his every new missive and post them straight to Twitter. https://warzel.substack.co…
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
to its credit, the co-chairs of the Board are (cordially) thrashing Facebook for essentially making up its content moderation rules as it goes along — particularly for influential users like Trump. part of the decision is to force FB to actually write and enforce policy clearly
@felixsalmon Felix Salmon on x
Isn't this basically an indefinite suspension? Facebook could just say “you're suspended for 3 weeks” and then just impose a new 3-week suspension every 3 weeks, indefinitely. How is that better? https://twitter.com/...
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
Everyone's dunking on Trump's new “blog,” but I think it's kinda cool in that it shows that everyone can speak on their own websites and don't *need* social media to speak. (Also, the terms of service on his site are fun). https://www.techdirt.com/...
@out5p0ken Outspoken on x
Does Donald J Trump's site include an automatic recurring donation form ... https://twitter.com/...
@timobrien Tim O'Brien on x
I don't know. It sure says “contribute” in a lot of places. And “shop.” https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@johnlegere John Legere on x
I hope he finds a way to get banned from his own social media site.... https://www.theverge.com/...
@robmay Rob May on x
So looks like Trump couldn't get his social network launched. Probably because his tech hires were about as competent as his government hires. When your primary hiring criteria is blind loyalty, it's hard to find competent people. https://www.theverge.com/...
@jasonmillerindc Jason Miller on x
🚨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.🚨 https://www.foxnews.com/...
@williamturton William Turton on x
Trump's site uses Cloudflare (as tons of other websites do) but using Cloudflare actually obscures which company is hosting the site. (It could also be Cloudflare doing the hosting.) I don't think we know for sure which company is hosting the site. https://twitter.com/...
@williamturton William Turton on x
If it is indeed Cloudflare hosting the site, I really doubt they would budge. It gets at a really interesting question. Social media companies may have the right to “deplatform” you, but does one have the right to host their own website?
@williamturton William Turton on x
Also, this was all true before the announcement of his new blog yesterday. His website has been around for awhile. I'm curious which company is hosting it because it makes them susceptible to people/orgs that may try to pressure them to stop working with Trump.
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
It is a blog. https://twitter.com/...
@kylegriffin1 Kyle Griffin on x
Social-media interactions about Trump have fallen 91% since January. When Trump lost his social media accounts, he lost his power to make himself the center of attention. https://www.axios.com/...
@zakirspeaks Zakir Khan on x
Have noticed way less MAGA in the mentions. https://twitter.com/...
@adamliaw Adam Liaw on x
It could be that he didn't have access to his social media accounts, but I have a crazy theory that it might also have something to do with the fact that he was no longer President of the United States. https://twitter.com/...
@nrothschild3 Neal Rothschild on x
Clicks to stories about Trump have fallen 95% since January. When he lost his social media accounts, he lost his once-immense power to put himself at the center of Americans' attention. https://www.axios.com/...
@stengel Richard Stengel on x
“Trump's social media superpower was never his ability to tweet — it was his ability to get the media to cover what he tweeted.”—SocialFlow CEO Jim Anderson https://www.axios.com/...
@jeffjarvis Jeff Jarvis on x
Yes. He also stopped being president. And he said things that made him, in any civilized quarters, a pariah. Multiple factors. https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles

Nick Clegg, who shaped Facebook's handling of Donald Trump, will lead the final decision-making process after the Oversight Board handed it back to Facebook

Related Coverage

Discussion