rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
5 years ago
WSJ
Facebook’s suspension of Donald Trump will continue for now, the company announced yesterday. But it still has not resolved the central problem that Trump has created for social media platforms and, by extension, American democracy. The problem is that Trump lies almost constantly. Unlike many other politicians — including other recent presidents, from both parties — he continues to make false statements even after other people have documented their falseness. This behavior undermines the healthy functioning of American democracy, particularly because Trump has such a large following.

His lies about the 2020 election are the clearest example. They have led tens of millions of people to believe a made-up story about how Joe Biden won. They have become a loyalty test within the Republican Party.

In Congress, Republicans are moving to oust Liz Cheney as one of their leaders after she said that people who repeated Trump’s “big lie” were “turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system.” In several states, Republican legislators are using Trump’s made-up story to justify new laws that make voting more difficult, especially in heavily Democratic areas. There is a direct connection between Trump’s lies about the election and the weakening of voting rights.

But Facebook has decided that the health of American democracy isn’t its problem.

Violence? No. Lies? Yes
The company justified its suspension of Trump in January not based on his lies but instead on his incitement of violence, before and during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters. Facebook continues to allow politicians to spread many falsehoods, saying it does not want to police truth. Distinguishing among truth, opinion and falsehood can indeed be tricky — but Trump’s claims about electoral theft are not a nuanced case.

The issue here isn’t the enduring philosophical question of what constitutes truth; it’s whether Facebook is willing to tolerate obvious and influential lies. So far, the company has decided that it is. It has drawn a line somewhere between blatant untruths and incitement to violence.

“Facebook’s approach to Trump’s attempts to undermine confidence in the integrity of the election was weak and ineffective,” Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, told me. When Trump last year falsely described mail-in voting as corrupt, for example, Facebook left up the post and instead added a link to a website where people could find general election information, as Hasen describes in his forthcoming book, “Cheap Speech.” Twitter, he notes, has taken a more aggressive position.

Yesterday’s decision officially came from a Facebook-appointed panel of speech experts that the company calls its Oversight Board. The board has no actual power to regulate the company, but it may have some influence on Facebook executives. In their statement, board members criticized Facebook for levying an indefinite suspension on Trump and said it should choose in the next six months between a permanent ban and a time-limited one: “In applying a vague, standard-less penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities,” the board wrote.

The board also suggested that Facebook should do more to distinguish between posts by ordinary people with small followings and posts by political leaders and others with wide influence (as my colleague Shira Ovide points out in her latest newsletter). The board wrote:

… context matters when assessing issues of causality and the probability and imminence of harm. What is important is the degree of influence that a user has over other users. When posts by influential users pose a high probability of imminent harm, as assessed under international human rights standards, Facebook should take action to enforce its rules quickly.
That passage highlights the crux of the issue. Facebook has evidently decided that undermining the credibility of democratic elections does not violate international human rights standards. If it maintains that position, Trump may be back on Facebook six months from now.

Speyside
5 years ago
Facebook is not obligated to allow freedom of speech. But they must have a clear policy that is enforced without prejudice.
Smooth light
5 years ago
They would change their tune if they lost there immunity,and have to pay damages if they loose, plus legal fees, like everyone else.
Krazeehorse
5 years ago
I think they will operate with impunity.
fiddler898
5 years ago
Facebook is no more obliged to permit Trump to post than your local newspaper is obliged to cover your 8 year old's science project.

And your 8 year old is smarter.
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
5 years ago
^this.

Trump just mad about people calling him out on his lies... I mean, it's a disgrace, let me tell you. All he wants to do is tell his side of things... you know, it really is unfair.
RayR
5 years ago
I'm not obliged to support my local newspaper and I don't because they are run by a bunch of leftist hacks.

I'm not obliged to support Facebook and I don't because they are run by a bunch of leftist hacks and therefore they naturally hate free speech, cause everything is deemed made up lies and false information by their fact checkers that defies the leftist agenda.
Now I'm supposed to believe that Facebook is looking to do an about-face and undermine the "credibility of democratic elections" and "violate international human rights standards" by allowing free speech? Lordy Lordy, tell me another story.😂
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
5 years ago
Free speech does not mean free from criticism, does not mean free from moderation, does not mean free to spew lies and hatred while being completely unchecked.

Just because you get your "facts" from "alternative sources" does not mean anyone is actively trying to curb your "free speech".

You haven't been reminded in a while.
opelmanta1900
5 years ago
I'm confused... is Trump entitled to a Facebook page or are bakeries allowed to decline gay wedding cake orders? Pretty sure it can't be both...
opelmanta1900
5 years ago
I mean, we're either gonna use legislation to force private companies to function against their will, or we're not, right?
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
5 years ago
Then there's that ^.

That's what I'm saying... Trump has his base's heads all twisted. Epic mind f*ck... I guess as long as you're telling them what they want to hear.
RayR
5 years ago

Free speech does not mean free from criticism, does not mean free from moderation, does not mean free to spew lies and hatred while being completely unchecked.

Just because you get your "facts" from "alternative sources" does not mean anyone is actively trying to curb your "free speech".

You haven't been reminded in a while.

bgz wrote:



The left wants to be free from criticism, they want to be free from being challenged in debate, so naturally they react to being called to debate by calling the challenger a spewer of lies and hatred, deserving of censorship, cancelation and doxing.
They are just afraid of a good show where they are not automatically declared the winner.
I thought you needed to be reminded of reality B.
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
5 years ago

The left wants to be free from criticism, they want to be free from being challenged in debate, so naturally they react to being called to debate by calling the challenger a spewer of lies and hatred, deserving of censorship, cancelation and doxing.
They are just afraid of a good show where they are not automatically declared the winner.
I thought you needed to be reminded of reality B.

RayR wrote:



Are you saying that people should be obligated to debate you? I don't think everyone is a natural contrarian such as I... good luck with that (Celtic gave me that label... thanks %@$&, but I guess you're not wrong, lol).

Are you suggesting that cancelling is unconstitutional?

Are you suggesting that private censorship is unconstitutional?

I'm not even sure what you are arguing for at this point. I think T has your head twisted...
teedubbya
5 years ago
I could use some cake about now
RayR
5 years ago

Are you saying that people should be obligated to debate you? I don't think everyone is a natural contrarian such as I... good luck with that (Celtic gave me that label... thanks %@$&, but I guess you're not wrong, lol).

Are you suggesting that cancelling is unconstitutional?

Are you suggesting that private censorship is unconstitutional?

I'm not even sure what you are arguing for at this point. I think T has your head twisted...

bgz wrote:



I said nothing about the Constitution and fail to see what that has to do with it.
I'm saying the left talks like a gang of school yard bully's that runs from a fair fight like a bunch of cowardly sissy pants.
ZRX1200
5 years ago
I think it’s really awesome to see people focusing on the division that you were told to.

Good job.

And otherwise smart people choose not to have problems with the real issue in an event....makes things so much easier the next time.
Stogie1020
5 years ago

I'm confused... is Trump entitled to a Facebook page or are bakeries allowed to decline gay wedding cake orders? Pretty sure it can't be both...

opelmanta1900 wrote:



Well, since one of your examples includes a federally protected class and the other is "we don't like his politics", they really aren't valid comparisons.
teedubbya
5 years ago
I think that would have the opposite impact
delta1
5 years ago
can't think of anyone who was forced to be a Facebooker...

stopped looking in several years ago due to all the outrageous crap floating around there...

instead, I come here if I want to be informed...
ZRX1200
5 years ago
^ handsome AND smart.
Users browsing this topic