By Jeff Horwitz
Facebook Inc. was justified in banning then-President Donald
Trump, the company's independent oversight board ruled Wednesday,
but didn't appropriately explain if or why the former president
should be permanently locked out of the social-media platform.
The board gave Facebook six months to determine whether Mr.
Trump should be permanently banned and, if so, to explain that
decision more fully.
The decision, which is binding, largely ratifies a choice
personally approved by Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg in
the wake of the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot and could have
far-reaching implications for how technology companies police
political speech.
"The Board found that, in maintaining an unfounded narrative of
electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created
an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible," the
board's opinion stated. "At the time of Mr. Trump's posts, there
was a clear, immediate risk of harm and his words of support for
those involved in the riots legitimized their violent actions."
The board's decision endorses Facebook's assessment of the risk
in allowing Mr. Trump to remain on the platform, while also
criticizing the company's broader approach to how it enforces its
rules. The board said Facebook failed to offer a clear explanation
for Mr. Trump's suspension or determine its duration.
"It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the
platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or
whether the account will be restored," the board said in its
decision. "In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then
referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to
avoid its responsibilities."
In a statement on Wednesday, Mr. Trump criticized the decision
as a "total disgrace" and reiterated his complaint that the tech
companies' moves against him are an assault on free speech.
"These corrupt social media companies must pay a political
price, and must never again be allowed to destroy and decimate our
Electoral Process," he said.
The board sidestepped taking a position on whether political
favoritism played a role in Facebook's decision on how to handle
Mr. Trump. In a conference call after the decision was announced,
board Co-Chairman Michael McConnell said the possibility is a
legitimate concern.
"When you do not have clarity, consistency and transparency,
there's no way to know," said Mr. McConnell, a Stanford University
law professor. "This is not the only case in which Facebook has
engaged in ad hockery."
A recent Pew Research Center survey found that Americans are
split on whether Mr. Trump should be barred from social media,
largely along partisan political lines. Roughly 49% of U.S. adults
said the former president's accounts should be permanently banned
from social-media platforms, while 50% said his accounts shouldn't
be banned, according to a Pew survey done in April.
About 88% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
reported Mr. Trump's accounts shouldn't be banned, while 81% of
Democrats and Democratic leaners said his accounts should be banned
permanently, according to the survey.
Facebook must reconsider the appropriate punishment for Mr.
Trump and explain its decision within six months. In addition to
the direct ruling, the board also issued seven recommendations for
Facebook for handling high-profile content during crises in the
future. Chief among them: explaining what its processes for such
decisions are.
"They cannot invent new, unwritten rules when it suits them,"
said Co-Chairman Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a former Danish prime
minister.
In a statement, Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president of global
affairs, said that Facebook would do as the board requested. "We
thank the board for the care and attention it gave this case," he
said.
The ruling prevents Mr. Trump from regaining the social-media
megaphone that he wielded for years and that he has lacked since
the industry's major players banned him from posting on their
platforms earlier this year, alleging he helped incite the violence
at the Capitol. The move also hampers one of his most effective
fundraising tools.
While Mr. Trump isn't known to be an avid Facebook user
personally, as he was with Twitter, his staff regularly
cross-posted his tweets there and used it to reach his more than 35
million followers on the platform.
The Facebook decision was made by five members of the current
20-person Oversight Board, then ratified by a majority of the full
board. The identities of the five individuals involved in the
decision won't be revealed.
Funded by Facebook through an endowment established in 2019, the
Oversight Board is designed to help the company tackle its most
contentious content-moderation issues and make policy
recommendations. The board operates like a Supreme Court for
content; the company can refer cases or individual users can ask
the board to review Facebook enforcement decisions.
Facebook joined Alphabet Inc.'s YouTube, Twitter Inc. and other
social-media platforms in removing then-president Trump after
accusing him of inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
The riot, which left five people dead, followed a speech by Mr.
Trump alleging that November's election had been stolen from him
and calling on his supporters to take their grievances to
Congress.
Mr. Trump has denied wrongdoing, and his lawyers in the
unsuccessful impeachment hearing against him called it "patently
absurd" to suggest that he incited violence. Mr. Trump was
impeached by the House and was acquitted in the Senate.
The former president has said repeatedly that he believes
Silicon Valley's biggest tech firms are biased against him and
conservatives generally.
Facebook took down the president's account after determining
that two of his posts from that day violated its prohibition of
praise for dangerous individuals and organizations. In those posts,
Mr. Trump called for peace but said the rioters' rage was
justified.
The major social-media platforms all took action against the
president's posts that afternoon, then formalized more lasting
suspensions in the following days. Facebook announced its ban in a
post by Mr. Zuckerberg.
"We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to
use our service during this period are simply too great," Mr.
Zuckerberg wrote in a January 7 post, arguing that Mr. Trump was
seeking to use the platform to disrupt the peaceful transition of
power.
Twitter has since declared its ban of Mr. Trump to be permanent,
while YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has said the platform will allow
his return when it is "safe" to do so.
These decisions have drawn criticism from many Republican
lawmakers, who say technology companies are censoring right-leaning
viewpoints, and some civil-liberties groups have likewise expressed
concern about the industry's control over political speech. Some
world leaders unaligned with Mr. Trump also questioned his removal,
with Germany's Angela Merkel calling the silencing of a head of
state problematic.
Many Democratic lawmakers and civil-rights groups have said the
companies were too slow to act against Mr. Trump's provocative
social-media activity, which they say set the stage for the
violence in the wake of the election.
Without a major social-media platform since the takedowns, Mr.
Trump has been communicating with his followers via written press
statements. He also maintains a direct line to supporters through
his campaign's email database, through which he is fundraising for
his political-action committee.
The decision could have major business implications for
Facebook. A number of major advertisers temporarily boycotted
Facebook last year in protest over what they said was the company's
ineffective policing of hate speech. Facebook in recent weeks has
reached out to advertising agencies in calls and emails to describe
the board's process and emphasize that its corporate management has
no sway over the decision, advertising executives said.
Facebook is the only company to have submitted its decision to
outside review and comment. Three weeks after suspending Mr. Trump
from the platform, Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president of global
affairs, called the ban "necessary and right" but said it was
important for the board to consider the case and offer guidance on
how to handle alleged misbehavior by heads of state.
The board received voluminous feedback in advance of the
decision, getting more than 9,000 public comments, as well as a
brief from Mr. Trump.
Partly in response to Mr. Trump's controversial rhetoric about
immigrants and Muslims during the 2016 presidential campaign,
Facebook carved out a "newsworthiness exemption" from its policies
against hate speech. In 2019, the company formalized protections
for political figures with rules exempting them from fact-checking,
saying it was inappropriate for the company to referee political
debates.
Facebook always maintained that speech that it deems to be
incitement to violence wouldn't be tolerated from any user.
Formed last year, the Oversight Board includes lawyers,
human-rights advocates and former politicians drawn from around the
world.
The board's first round of decisions struck a
free-speech-friendly tone, with members rebuking Facebook for
taking down posts questioning the sanity of Muslim men and
supporting the availability of Covid-19 treatments generally
rejected by public health authorities.
Although the board initially promised to weigh in on Mr. Trump's
ban within 90 days, it postponed the decision to consider public
comments.
--Alexandra Bruell and Suzanne Vranica contributed to this
article.
Write to Jeff Horwitz at Jeff.Horwitz@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
May 05, 2021 12:13 ET (16:13 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2024 to May 2024
Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META)
Historical Stock Chart
From May 2023 to May 2024