At first blush this may seem trivial, whether El Grande Mouth will be permitted back on a social media outlet from which he was indefinitely suspended after inciting the Capitol Riot, but the decision about whether to restore Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram privileges has significance for the precedence it will set. And that is why, believe it or not, the world is watching this decision by Facebook’s oversight board. Axios:
Details: “I’m less concerned about the fate of Donald Trump as much as I am about the precedent that this is setting for the removal and de-platforming of everyone else,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told Axios.
-
Khanna warned that bringing President Trump back to the platform immediately may not be the best approach.
-
“At the very least” there should be a long waiting period before he’s brought back on, he argued. “[W]e still get threats at the Capitol of people who are inflamed by what he did, so it doesn’t seem to me that there’s been enough time that has elapsed.”
Conservatives Axios spoke to are still angry about the decision. “While I would be glad to see Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘Supreme Court’ deliver a check on his conceit, I will not be celebrating,” says Rep. Jim Banks, chair of the Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House.
-
“No corporate CEO or their ‘oversight board’ should be more powerful than the leaders you elect,” he said.
-
“Facebook’s content moderation standards are not applied in a fair and neutral manner,” says Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), ranking member of the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.
-
“If this were true, world leaders who spew violent speech like the Ayatollah of Iran or Chinese Communist Party officials would be de-platformed.”
The big picture: Around the world, state leaders have condemned Trump’s account bans by social media giants, arguing that having platforms freeze the pages of world leaders is a slippery slope.
-
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called the bans “problematic.” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador called them “censorship.” Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has urged his followers to boycott the platforms. Polish officials say they plan to make social media bans illegal.
This is a big thing. Social media is a new phenomenon, historically speaking, and one with great cultural impact. Probably the closest thing in modern history to compare with it would be the development of radio and television.
Sources at Facebook tell Axios the company was initially expecting the board to uphold its decision, given that so many other platforms made similar calls in light of the Capitol attack.
-
Facebook VP of global affairs Nick Clegg told Axios in January, following the Board referral, “I very much hope and can expect … that they will uphold our decision.”
Make no mistake, this is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t proposition. If Trump stays banned, that will be construed as right-wing discrimination, and the conservative world already claims that the tech giants and social media are prejudiced against them. If Trump is reinstated, then who knows what havoc he might wreak and what disinformation he might spew?
I assume that the Facebook board will write an opinion on this, whichever way it goes. That should be some interesting reading.
I love the immediate irony listed in the reactions of a pair of world leaders.
First, Mexico’s President claims the ban to be “censorship” (obviously, Sr López Obrador needs a refresher in the legal definition of “censorship” as it applies to PRIVATE organizations) and then Brazil’s own little dictator/emperor-wannabe urges a boycott (which, if the US government or US president stated the same thing WOULD be “censorship”).
Then again, there’s Chancellor Merkel’s interesting take on the issue. The current governments of many European countries–Germany included–OUTRIGHT BAN (ie, “censor”) organizations which promote Nazi ideology or Holocaust denial. And, it’s interesting that Merkel isn’t as upset when some of her fellow European leaders support bans of LGBTQ organizations (such as recent leaders in Hungary and Poland). I guess Frau Merkel is okay when the GOVERNMENT bans (ie, “censors”) individuals and organizations which support LGBTQ equality but if Facebook feels it should shut down the page of Hungary’s Prime Minister or the Polish legislature in support of the rights of Hungarian and Polish LGBTQs, then Frau Merkel is opposed to that. That, meine gnädige Frau, is known as “Heuchelei” (hypocrisy).
I’ve got a couple of thoughts regarding world leaders who are critical of Trump’s FB ban. Any regular individual who behaved on FB or other social media who posted the kind of crap Trump regularly did would be banned. People who repeatedly violated the “terms” had been and continue to be banned for far less. However, for Heads of State (and even some top, top level political types close to them) profit overcomes the public good so an exemption has been carved out. Those “very special” types get carte blanche because they are world “leaders.” Trump exploited that loophole about as “bigly” as can be.
However Trump is no longer a Head of State. He is an EX President!
He isn’t even a world leader.
Think about that for a second. In the past, former Presidents including even George W. Bush who created a mess the world is still dealing has remained someone who world leaders paid attention to. Although in Bush 43’s case behind the scenes. There aren’t any world leaders who give two shits about Donald Trump and want his opinion on any policy matter. There are I suppose a few who still suck up to him for financial reasons (trying to keep some stupid development project going but they sure as hell don’t want the people in their dictatorships to know about it!) but it’s no secret that even the dictators Trump openly admired had NO respect for him even when he was President. Our Orange Hued Con Man President was himself the “mark” of authoritarian Heads of State running their own con. On HIM!
Trump wasn’t respected in the world’s leadership even when he was still in the WH – only tolerated because of the Office he held. They had no choice but to deal, or more accurately I think put up with him. The world in general heaved a big sigh of relief when noon on January 20 rolled around and Joe Biden was sworn in with Trump in sort of exile down in FL. World leaders have no use for him and like those of us on this site wish he’d just fade away. Ok, so some of us (a lot) wish “away” was in prison but the relative silence from him has been truly golden.
The point though is that Trump is no longer a world leader in any sense of the term. He’s NOT a Head of State. He’s not even a former Head of State who is respected around the world. From where I sit the rules that apply to us mere mortals now apply to Trump and should continue to do so. He has given NO indications that should his ban be reversed that his behavior would be any different than it was prior to being de-platformed.
Right on, Denis! tRump should have no expectations of special treatment because he’s just a citizen now, although a loud-mouthed destructive one. It’s been so nice these last few months not to be plagued with his rants, lies, mean-spirited, degrading insults. No one has missed him! Please don’t let him back on the platform!
Please explain to me how an executive, exercising control over his company and product, is being more powerful than a world leader? Former guy deserves to continue banning, as he has not changed his ways and like was stated, no one in power wants to hear from him anyways. Certainly if they did, there are other channels of communication.
The Orange Monster broke the rules of Facebook and Twitter repeatedly and almost daily for four years. He should have been banned four years earlier than he was. And he should remained banned, as his behavior has not changed. He is still spewing the vile and dis-proven lie that the election was stolen from him, when he was the one who stole the 2016 election by corrupting the electoral college!
It does seem a shade hypocritical in that where shops can refuse to serve undesirable customers, that a bakery can refuse to bake a cake for cistomers it considers undesirable Iand that was backed by the US Supreme Court) that there is such a kerfuffle over a company exercising its right to tell a client “You aren’t allowed back here”.
Oh and somebody please tell Ken Buck that an ‘Ayatollah’ isn’t a government position – it’s a Farsi word that roughly translates as ‘Reverend’ (aka – he’s a religious preacher). Talking about the Ayatollah of Iran would be the same as calling Mike Pence ‘the Vice-Reverend of the US’