AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Analysis oversight facebook1/17/2024 The policy restricted free expression for a legitimate purpose because it sought to protect “public order, as well as respect for the rights of others, including the rights to life, security, and to participate in elections and to have the outcome respected and implemented.” Finally, proportionality requires that restrictions on speech be accomplished by the least restrictive means. The board found the other two requirements of human rights law were met. The board found that the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Standard was sufficiently clear as to give notice that Trump’s posts were violations, but because neither Facebook’s Community Standards, its Terms of Service, nor other public pronouncements by the company mentioned indefinite suspension as a potential consequence of policy violations, the penalty Facebook imposed did not meet the standard of legality. Legality requires that a decision be made pursuant to a clear rule. Under international human rights law, the board assessed whether the suspension met the test of legality, purpose, and proportionality. The board also found that the suspension of Trump’s account was consistent with Facebook’s values of “Voice” and “Safety,” with the imminent safety concerns presented by the attacks outweighing the interest in preserving freedom of speech. You’re very special” in the first post and “great patriots” and “remember this day forever” in the second - demonstrated praise of those events. 6 posts violated Facebook’s Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standard, because Facebook had designated the Capitol attacks as “violent events” and Trump’s comments - “We love you. 6 and the continued indefinite suspension under three rubrics: Facebook’s Community Standards, Facebook’s Values, and international human rights law. ![]() Since these are not binding, the ultimate test of the board’s influence will be how the company responds.Īs in its prior decisions, the board reviewed Facebook’s decision to suspend Trump’s account on Jan. ![]() The board made critical recommendations: that Facebook should reckon with its own role in amplifying content and overhaul its approach to high-reach accounts. Operating under the mandate of a private company, the board sat in judgment on its creator’s decision to banish its most famous user, who at the time was the most powerful person in the world.Īt the same time, the board was unable to get answers from Facebook about the role that its algorithms and policies played in promoting lies about the 2020 election, the information ecosystem within which Trump operated, or the influence of political actors on the company’s decisions. The decision by the Facebook Oversight Board on whether former President Donald Trump should be allowed back on the platform demonstrates both the extent and the very real limits of the board’s authority. This article was originally published in Just Security
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |