Facebook Oversight Board upholds decision to ban Trump, asks FB to look at own 'potential contribution' to 'narrative of electoral fraud' The Facebook Oversight Board has upheld former President Donald Trump’s ban from Facebook and Instagram - but not before advising the platform to look at its own role in the Capitol-storming mess. The social media giant was the first major platform to ban Trump following the January 6 insurrection, when hundreds of his …
20 members
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Oversight_Board
Looks like the devil pays well
FREE SPEECH FOR THE DONALD!
(happy now? - I made the mistake of voting for him the 1st time, but I didn't get fooled again)
It's really scary in my part of small-town America with all the people on my block alone with "don't tread on me" flags, "Biden is not my president" signs, and other crap displayed in the yard.
I did love how one guy made a smartass remark about my "Made in China" electric bike, only for me to shut him down about how it was designed and manufactured in Santa Cruz, California, with the exception of the forks, which are Japanese-made just like Harleys.
Dear Mr McCarthy (any relation?) Facebook is not a platform for free speech and debate, it is a private company and can do what it likes (within the law).
As for Ted "takes holidays during state disasters" Cruz... Facebook can't muzzle me because I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member.
... to post pretty much the same thing.
Except I'll add a couple questions for Mr. Cruz ... Are you trying to put private companies under Government control, Mr. Cruz? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own resources? What are you, Mr. Cruz, some kind of Commie?
What are you, Mr. Cruz, some kind of Commie?
I think "commie" is the wrong word. Think political party in Germany in the late 30's to mid-40's. Cruz's party does seem to be following certain playbooks published by that German party.
As my wording.. I'm censoring myself. I have friends on other sites that have been blocked for using the real names of those I mentioned.
For any organisation or business, broadcaster or whatever that uses the "go to our Faecebook page for more information". My standard response: "ok, thanks anyway. I'll try somewhere else".
It's taking some marketing departments some time to realise the ugly stigma attached to Faecebook and its users.
It's interesting to note how different media outlets are covering this story:
Guardian Headline:
Trump’s Facebook ban should not be lifted, network’s oversight board rules
Register Headline:
Facebook Oversight Board upholds decision to ban Trump, asks FB to look at own 'potential contribution' to 'narrative of electoral fraud'
BBC Headline:
Facebook ordered to rethink Trump's permanent ban
The Grauniad gives the main ruling the rest of the detail being in the story.
El Reg gives the main ruling, but also adds in the bit that they want us to concentrate on i.e. that Facebook were keen to promote the story of electoral fraud.
The BBC on the other hand produces a headline which actually seems to contradict the main ruling. I can only assume that this is either clickbait or the BBC want to promote controversy.
The problem is that the BBC headline, though somewhat misleading, is completely factual. Here's the relevant portion of the Register article:
However, the Oversight Board criticised the extraordinary nature of the ban, which was not rooted in precedent, but rather a reaction to the events happening in Washington D.C.
“It was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account,” it said.
It has ordered Facebook to revisit the decision within the next six months and re-issue a penalty that’s based on ”the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm,” as well as precedent.
So it did order Facebook to rethink the decision, but specifically to decide on a different penalty. Of course, from their list of accepted options, it seems Facebook could just suspend for a fixed length period of sixteen centuries and that would meet the requirements.
To be fair, there is ordered and then there is ordered.
Facebook is perfectly capable of ignoring the so-called "oversight board", it's not like they are in charge of decision making at Facebook. or anything else even vaguely resembling that.
Auntie Beeb's headline was intentionally disingenuous no matter how you read it.
"The inside story of how we reached the Facebook-Trump verdict"
Alan Rusbridger
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
