“We’re talking about scale, targeting, amplification,” said Peter Pomerantsev, an author who studies disinformation online at the London School of Economics’ Institute of Global Affairs and at Johns Hopkins University. Immediate reactions to the oversight board’s decision echoed this deeper concern about the basic design of Facebook and other social media and internet platforms. This should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.” The board said Facebook should “undertake a comprehensive review of Facebook’s potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6. It also recommended that Facebook “rapidly escalate content containing political speech from highly influential users to specialized staff who are familiar with the linguistic and political context.”Īnd the board also gave a recommendation that seemed to echo some of the most fundamental and biting critiques of Facebook by reformers, who say that the platform’s basic design and business model amplifies and spreads lies and disinformation because it makes them more money. Suspension periods should be long enough to deter misconduct and may, in appropriate cases, include account or page deletion,” the board wrote. If a head of state or high government official has repeatedly posted messages that pose a risk of harm under international human rights norms, Facebook should suspend the account for a period sufficient to protect against imminent harm. “Heads of state and other high officials of government can have a greater power to cause harm than other people. The board gave some guidance on how it thinks Facebook should treat influential users differently than others. Photo illustration: Yahoo News photos: AP(2), Getty Images

The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty,” the board wrote. “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.”Īnd so the board kicked the final decision back to Facebook, and the implication is that it wants the social media giant itself to decide whether to permanently disable Trump’s account or not. ‘Indefinite’ suspensions are not described in the company’s content policies. “In applying this penalty, Facebook did not follow a clear, published procedure. 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 board wrote. “However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an ‘indefinite’ suspension. Trump’s accounts on January 6 and extending that suspension on January 7. Given the seriousness of the violations and the ongoing risk of violence, Facebook was justified in suspending Mr. The reach of his posts was large, with 35 million followers on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram.

Trump’s posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm and his words of support for those involved in the riots legitimized their violent actions,” the oversight board found in its report. Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. “The Board found that, in maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. 6 insurrection was upheld by an independent oversight board on Wednesday, but the panel also said that Facebook can’t indefinitely keep Trump in limbo and must reach a “proportionate response.” Facebook’s suspension of former President Donald Trump after the Jan.

Facebook oversight