Facebook extends Trump's ban to 2 years, resolves to be harsher on politicians

mongeese

Posts: 513   +109
Staff member
Recap: Following the January 6 insurrection, Facebook suspended Trump's accounts on all their platforms to prevent him from inciting further violence. Facebook’s independent Oversight Board later approved the suspension but said that it needed to be defined in finite terms, prompting Facebook to write new enforcement protocols that dictate a maximum suspension term of two years. Trump’s suspension will now be reconsidered on January 7, 2023.

"At the end of this period, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded," writes Nick Clegg, VP of Facebook Global Affairs. "We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded."

When Trump’s suspension is lifted, "a strict set of rapidly escalating sanctions" will be ready to be applied if he violates Facebook’s Community Standards again. His permanent removal is possible.

Moving forward, Facebook will be more precise with the penalties they apply to politicians. Violations of their Community Standards will be met with suspensions of increasing duration, from one month up to two years. In some cases, the reach of a post or account can also be limited.

Facebook will continue to grant newsworthiness exceptions to important but controversial posts, but will no longer give politicians preferential treatment when deciding if a post is newsworthy.

They promise to "remove content if the risk of harm outweighs the public interest" irrespective of its author. They’ll also start labeling posts that have been granted newsworthiness exceptions as such.

Facebook acknowledges that their new protocols will cause controversy, now and in every instance they’re enacted. They continue to advocate for "frameworks agreed upon by democratically accountable lawmakers," but in lieu of such a solution, they’re willing to continue regulating their courts of public opinion themselves.

Image credit: Barefoot Communications

Permalink to story.

 

yRaz

Posts: 3,788   +3,907
Normally, I would oppose such a ban on any political figure, regardless of party affiliation, but Trump is a Russian/Putin asset, and as such is a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to the U. S., and should be treated as such.
Okay, well the ban isn't just on Trump. So you might not like Trump but you have to oppose this because it isn't just a ban on Trump. We don't get to pick and choose who has rights when it is convenient. Facebook gets to ban who they want. Just as, you say, Trump may try to project a political agenda for Russia, Facebook gets to censor who they want to project theirs. Hell, they probably already do by simply not showing certain posts in people's news feeds while they let posters think people are seeing it.

What if a post like yours here was banned because Facebook was pro trump?
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,717   +1,322
We desperately need digital rights. Facebook is practically the public digital space however its privately owned by a rather tyranical individual who seems to enjoy threatening governments and hoarding billions of dollars. His latest move to ban the political candidate he disagrees with and laying down criteria to ensure that this individual is not able to use Facebook to campaign again.

If we had rights, Trump could easily prove in a fair court of law that his statements are no more inciteful to violence than many of his political opponents statements and a judge could either allow him to have access to the digital public space again or order Facebook to ban lists of other politicians, many who have clearly more directly incited violence *cough* Maxine Waters *cough*.

PS I am no Trump supporter or even a republican supporter. Im a systems engineer who lives between the UK and Thailand. To me and most people outside of the US the censorship of Trump is blatantly political and quite surprising, Im used to seeing this sort of thing out in Asia but not in the west. My view on it is if you are going to ban people from the public space, it should be done by a judge in a court of law and not a billionaire CEO who was probably aboard his private jet.
 

m4a4

Posts: 2,487   +2,864
TechSpot Elite
Conveniently long enough to silence him until after midterms.

And the loudest people on the left won't care because they hate Trump (and seemingly anyone right of center) more than they hate election interference or controlled/silenced speech.

I have yet to see any citation that shows an unmanipulated/apolitical reason as to why the ban was brought down as hard as it has (considering other elected officials have been shown to freely call for violence in other situations to a far worse degree).
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,634   +4,094
*conservative politicians. Liberal politicians will still be able to freely call for the curtailing of rights or call for violence based on a subject's skin color, sexual orientation, or opinions. This will be allowed while the gaslighting of "we are being harsh on politicians" will continue full force.

Normally, I would oppose such a ban on any political figure, regardless of party affiliation, but Trump is a Russian/Putin asset, and as such is a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to the U. S., and should be treated as such.
Normally, I would oppose such a ban on any political figure, regardless of party affiliation, but Biden is a Chinese/Xi Ping asset, and as such is a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to the U. S., and should be treated as such.

You either support free speech or you support censored speech, there is no middle ground.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,367   +4,679
The posts to this thread are hilarious.
*conservative politicians. Liberal politicians will still be able to freely call for the curtailing of rights or call for violence based on a subject's skin color, sexual orientation, or opinions. This will be allowed while the gaslighting of "we are being harsh on politicians" will continue full force.
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
Normally, I would oppose such a ban on any political figure, regardless of party affiliation, but Biden is a Chinese/Xi Ping asset, and as such is a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to the U. S., and should be treated as such.
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
You either support free speech or you support censored speech, there is no middle ground.
Well, I guess you should take this to SCOTUS. After all, its Trumps court. Oh Wait. Those election cases prove otherwise. I forgot.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,367   +4,679
Here's an idea: bar all politicians from being on the platform entirely.

If you want to claim you're a private social network, you need to be a private social network.
That's just the thing. The 1st Amendment prevents the US Government from making or enforcing laws that limit the freedom of speech (except in cases already decided by SCOTUS where inciting violence is not considered a 1st Amendment right). The 1st Amendment is not written such that private companies are required to let everyone and anyone say whatever they please at any time.

I just do not get why people cannot seem to grasp this.

If you do not like what fakebook is doing, do as I do. Don't bother with the stupid platform at all.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,367   +4,679
Conveniently long enough to silence him until after midterms.

And the loudest people on the left won't care because they hate Trump (and seemingly anyone right of center) more than they hate election interference or controlled/silenced speech.

I have yet to see any citation that shows an unmanipulated/apolitical reason as to why the ban was brought down as hard as it has (considering other elected officials have been shown to freely call for violence in other situations to a far worse degree).
Silence Trump until after the midterms??? 🤣 Trump started his own platform. What happened to that?? Besides, every inane thing Trump says is over-covered by the media anyway, so he's already got a captive audience elsewhere. Do you really think its possible to silence Trump - that is - anything short of putting him in jail?? :facepalm:
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,367   +4,679
We desperately need digital rights. Facebook is practically the public digital space however its privately owned by a rather tyranical individual who seems to enjoy threatening governments and hoarding billions of dollars. His latest move to ban the political candidate he disagrees with and laying down criteria to ensure that this individual is not able to use Facebook to campaign again.

If we had rights, Trump could easily prove in a fair court of law that his statements are no more inciteful to violence than many of his political opponents statements and a judge could either allow him to have access to the digital public space again or order Facebook to ban lists of other politicians, many who have clearly more directly incited violence *cough* Maxine Waters *cough*.

PS I am no Trump supporter or even a republican supporter. Im a systems engineer who lives between the UK and Thailand. To me and most people outside of the US the censorship of Trump is blatantly political and quite surprising, Im used to seeing this sort of thing out in Asia but not in the west. My view on it is if you are going to ban people from the public space, it should be done by a judge in a court of law and not a billionaire CEO who was probably aboard his private jet.
But if such were forced on Fakebook, worthless as Fakebook is, it would be unconstitutional in the US.

And as I see it, the republican party has only itself to blame for the current situation in the US. They revoked something called "The Fairness Doctrine" during Regan's reign because they felt that it infringed on the 1st Amendment rights of companies. Look where it got them, and the US with all the :poop: in the US media these days.
 

Austinturner

Posts: 268   +316
The only way I see to stop a private company from refusing to serve a customer (in this case trump) would be to pass legislation. I’m thinking along the lines of phone companies, create a new class of utilities with extra protection and rules, “tech platforms over 1 billion users” for example and regulate them as utilities.

I don’t know if this is necessary though as people will eventually just move on from facebook anyway.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,367   +4,679
The only way I see to stop a private company from refusing to serve a customer (in this case trump) would be to pass legislation. I’m thinking along the lines of phone companies, create a new class of utilities with extra protection and rules, “tech platforms over 1 billion users” for example and regulate them as utilities.

I don’t know if this is necessary though as people will eventually just move on from facebook anyway.
What you are proposing would be against the 1st Amendment, thus, unconstitutional, which reads
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-amendment-p2-721185#:~:text=First Amendment Text The first amendment reads: Congress,petition the government for a redress of grievances.

EDIT: What is so difficult to understand about this that people just don't get it????? :facepalm:
 

Austinturner

Posts: 268   +316
What you are proposing would be against the 1st Amendment, thus, unconstitutional, which reads

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-amendment-p2-721185#:~:text=First Amendment Text The first amendment reads: Congress,petition the government for a redress of grievances.

EDIT: What is so difficult to understand about this that people just don't get it????? :facepalm:
A) I’m not an american, put your shocked monkey away mate
B) What I’m talking about is similar to Common Carrier applied to telecommunications where there are higher standards for discrimination and refusal to serve customers etc, in return the service enjoys greater protections from liability
 

RudyBob

Posts: 164   +179
Normally, I would oppose such a ban on any political figure, regardless of party affiliation, but Trump is a Russian/Putin asset, and as such is a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to the U. S., and should be treated as such.
Trump is a great American. He is an 11 which is one greater
 

m4a4

Posts: 2,487   +2,864
TechSpot Elite
Silence Trump until after the midterms??? 🤣 Trump started his own platform. What happened to that?? Besides, every inane thing Trump says is over-covered by the media anyway, so he's already got a captive audience elsewhere. Do you really think its possible to silence Trump - that is - anything short of putting him in jail?? :facepalm:
He is silenced on big public social platforms, which has a big effect on influence. Your disingenuity here (by pretending it doesn't do much) is hilarious, especially suggesting the media's political coverage is trustworthy.

But you're the type of person who doesn't care who's speech gets stifled as long as it's not your guy's. Your clear hatred of 1 man means that you're not only ok with it, but you blindly support it (no issues raised).
If it were flipped you would be howling about it 😂

Anyways, if you won't even admit that these p̶u̶b̶l̶I̶s̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ platforms might've overstepped their bounds, there's no point responding to you further.