Facebook’s review board decision on Trump’s ban did not satisfy anyone

Facebook’s censorship board supported the ban on former President Donald Trump; But the council also said it found the indefinite ban inappropriate, and demanded that Facebook review the decision and decide on an “appropriate penalty” within 6 months.

And the decision of the Facebook censorship board, which is long-awaited about banning the account of former President Donald Trump, which brought the ball back to the court of Facebook, prompted the decision once again to the Silicon Valley giant, to increase calls from Republicans and Democrats demanding the need for government intervention to regulate the work and powers of social media.

The decision came 4 months after Facebook permanently banned Trump’s account for inciting violence, which led his supporters to storm the Capitol building on January 6.

Despite praising the suspension of Trump’s account, the committee blamed Facebook for the way in which it had taken the decision, stating that “it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an indefinite and non-standard punishment for suspending Trump’s account for an indefinite period.”

Democrats and advocates of Facebook’s decision criticized the censorship board’s decision to leave the door open for Trump to return, while Republicans focused their criticism on accusations that Facebook was censoring conservatives through a ban.

As expected, Trump criticized the decision, and, in addition to Facebook, attacked the “Twitter” and Google (Google) companies.

Trump said – in a statement – that “these corrupt social media companies must pay a political price, and they must not be allowed again to destroy our electoral process.”

Facebook CEO Nick Clegg confirmed that Trump’s account will remain suspended while the platform reviews the decision, and will set a clear and appropriate procedure.

Democrats anger

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) said in a statement, “Our nation is still living with the consequences of the deadly insurgency incited by Donald Trump, and there is a clear and present danger that he will do so again.” “The Facebook self-funded committee’s decision supports a minimum of truth and decency. Now, Facebook has to decide which values ​​it cares about most: profit making or holding Donald Trump accountable for embracing hate, disinformation and violence.”

Democratic Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) said the expanded ban is “a welcome step from Facebook”; But he added that lawmakers need to address “the roots of these issues,” which include “lobbying for effective oversight mechanisms to hold platforms accountable for permitting the publication of what is harmful in the real world.”

Representative Frank Ballon, chairman of the House Energy and Trade Committee, wrote on Twitter that real accountability will only come with reform legislative measures by Congress to regulate the work of social media platforms.

Balloon tweeted, “Donald Trump has played a big role in helping Facebook spread misinformation, but whether on the platform or not, Facebook and other social media platforms are finding ways to highlight the division and polarization in order to raise advertising revenue.”

Republicans threaten Facebook

For their part, the Republicans launched fierce attacks on Facebook and on the oversight board that decided on the review.

Representative of the Republic, Cathy Rodgers (Washington State), attacked the action of the Supervisory Board, and considered the process “largely lacking in transparency and accountability.”

The Republican Representative indicated – in a statement – that the giant technology companies “operate without clear and consistent rules, and their appeals system lacks transparency. The censorship board returning this important decision to Facebook after months of secret deliberations calls into question its purpose, and this is unacceptable.” And it only stresses the need for Congress to intensify our work to achieve the reform and oversight that the major technology companies need. “

Other Republicans used the censorship board’s decision to pressure Facebook to dismantle Facebook due to its market power.

Ken Back, a senior member of the House antitrust subcommittee, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by the board’s decision to uphold the ban.

“The American people should fear any company that sees itself as powerful to the point that it has created a biased, quasi-judicial entity of its own to adjudicate our rights granted under the First Amendment to the Constitution,” Buck said in a statement.

Fears for freedom of expression

And a number of Republican leaders considered that Facebook’s status as a monopoly led its leaders to believe that they are able to silence and control Americans’ speech without any repercussions, and voices have risen calling for the need to reform antitrust law to break Facebook’s monopoly.

Republican Representative Jim Jordan (Ohio) tweeted simply “let’s divide them”, referring to the need to break up technology companies to enforce monopoly laws.

The credibility of the Council of Twenty

The attacks of many of the top leaders of the two parties focused on the oversight council, which was formed by Facebook of 20 members, including Tawakkol Karman, a right-wing activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011, as well as former political officials, activists, journalists, and legal experts.

The company has allocated more than $ 160 million as an endowment for spending on council members and their assistants, and has allocated high monthly salaries to them.

Commentators said that a board from Facebook cannot be held accountable by Facebook, and it is not expected that the censorship board chosen by Facebook, promoted by Facebook, and regulated by Facebook, will be held accountable. Facebook itself cannot self-regulate.

Other advocates speaking during the press conference suggested repealing special immunities for technology companies, such as Section 230. This provision is part of a 1996 law that provides technology companies with legal liability protection for content posted by third parties.

On the other hand, some observers considered that the censorship board’s decision to return Trump’s case to Facebook provides the platform with an opportunity to correct the first mistake.

Legal experts called on Facebook to provide justifications to ban Trump, especially with regard to his use of the platform in a dangerous way, and to set general rules that can be imposed on other users.