Connect with us


Trump faces a narrow path to victory against Facebook suspension



Trump faces a narrow path to victory against <b>Facebook</b> suspension thumbnail

The key factors, these people said, will include whether the board thinks Facebook set clear enough rules and gave Trump a fair shake. Another will be what kind of case the board thinks it’s weighing — a narrow, “legalistic” debate about one person’s freedom of expression or a broader one about the public’s right to safety.

The board, often likened to Facebook’s Supreme Court, has the power to overrule decisions even by top executives like CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Its ruling on Trump will be the group’s highest-profile yet, with momentous implications for U.S. politics and potentially the company’s treatment of other world leaders.

Here are the make-or-break factors that could determine Trump’s fate on Facebook:

A point for Trump: The board’s early rulings bode well for his case

The oversight board’s decisions so far would seem to offer favorable omens for Trump: It has ruled against Facebook and ordered content restored in almost every case it has reviewed since its launch before the 2020 U.S. elections.

Two aspects of those decisions could work especially well for the former president: the board’s commitment to freedom of expression, and a big emphasis on whether Facebook made its policies clear enough for users.

The early rulings showed that the board values free expression “very highly,” said Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has closely followed the oversight board’s work.

“They put a lot of weight on the importance of voice and the importance of free expression and free speech and they really put the onus on Facebook to heavily justify any restrictions that they wanted,” she said.

The board could decide that Facebook’s policy against incitement to violence isn’t clear enough. That policy was the company’s main justification for booting Trump after the assault on the Capitol, during which he had repeated his false claims of a stolen election and attacked Vice President Mike Pence for certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

“One thing that really struck me in their initial decisions was kind of how much of their analysis focused on lack of clarity in Facebook’s policies, and really pointing to that as a rationale for saying content has to be restored on the platform,” said Emma Llansó of the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, which receives funding from Facebook and other tech companies.

When Facebook announced Trump’s suspension on Jan. 7, Zuckerberg said the risk of further violence if the platform allowed him to remain active was “simply too great.” The company’s rules say Facebook can “remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence” or “when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.” The policy also says Facebook may consider additional context in such cases, such as whether a user’s prominence adds to the danger.

But the board’s decision may turn on whether those policies gave Trump sufficient notice of what behavior would violate the rules — in other words, whether he received due process.

Under “the most narrow kind of legalistic interpretation,” Llansó said, “they might well conclude that Trump’s account should go back up.”

A point for Facebook: Trump got a lot of warnings

On the other hand, due process concerns may matter a lot less when dealing with Trump, a public figure who had repeated run-ins with the site’s rules.

“When it comes to [Facebook’s] decision making, it’s not really been clear to users, generally, about where the lines are drawn,” said David Kaye, a professor at the University of California at Irvine and a former United Nations special rapporteur. “But I don’t think any of that really applies to Trump. I mean, for months, all the platforms had been basically signaling to Trump pretty clearly that you are coming up to the line, if not crossing over it with respect to our rules.”

Trump spent years butting heads with Facebook over its standards, including posts before and after the election that the company either adorned with warning labels or took down entirely for making unfounded claims about the election or the coronavirus pandemic.

That should have made it clear to him and his accounts’ handlers that he was at risk for more forceful action, Douek said.

“There have been years of battle between Facebook and years of contestation around Trump’s presence on the platform, and it absolutely can’t be said that he didn’t have an idea that he was breaching Facebook’s policies,” she said.

Facebook took down more Trump posts immediately after the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, declaring it an “emergency situation” and warning that his online rhetoric “contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence.” It suspended him the following day.

A point for Trump: Critics say Facebook’s enforcement has been uneven

Facebook’s much-scrutinized track record in policing Trump’s posts could play in his favor, though.

Daniel Kreiss, a media professor at the University of North Carolina, argued that the social media giant spent years essentially ignoring Trump’s violations of its rules because the company stuck to an “overly narrow interpretation” of them.

That could hurt the company’s case, he said, if the board believes that the company suddenly adopted a broader interpretation of its policies in handling Trump’s posts on and after Jan. 6.

“A lot of this comes back to Facebook’s own failures over the last year,” Kreiss said.

In his Jan. 7 post, Zuckerberg said Facebook had let Trump use the platform “consistent with our own rules,” but that the storming of the Capitol dramatically changed the dynamics. “The current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government,” the CEO said.

But critics have skewered the company for not taking a more aggressive stance against Trump’s repeated, unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 elections, as well as earlier posts such as his warning to racial justice protesters last May that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Zuckerberg rejected such criticisms nearly a year ago, saying that “our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.”

The perceived inconsistency, coupled with the oversight board’s initial decisions, could mean Trump is bound for a comeback, Kreiss argued.

“If I was a betting man, I would say that the early rulings would lead me to expect that the oversight board will overturn Facebook’s decisions,” he said.

A point for Facebook: Trump’s case defies precedent

Perhaps the biggest factor in Facebook’s favor is the fact that Trump’s case breaks any semblance of precedent the board could have established in its early rulings, the people tracking its deliberations said.

None of the previous cases directly involved a government leader — let alone the leader of the free world, or one accused of inciting a deadly attack in the seat of his own democracy. Plus, all the past disputes were about Facebook’s decisions to take down specific pieces of content, not the suspension of someone’s entire account.

“The thing about the Trump case is it’s so sui generis and exceptional,” Douek said.

“This just does seem a case that in some ways, is set apart … because of the magnitude of it in terms of how important this person is,” said University of North Carolina media professor Shannon McGregor, who co-wrote a piece with Kreiss calling for the oversight board to uphold Trump’s suspension.

Facebook in fact leaned on the unparalleled nature of the case when it referred Trump’s suspension to the oversight board on Jan. 21, kicking off the at-most 90-day review period.

“Our decision to suspend then-President Trump’s access was taken in extraordinary circumstances: a US president actively fomenting a violent insurrection designed to thwart the peaceful transition of power; five people killed; legislators fleeing the seat of democracy,” said Facebook global affairs chief Nick Clegg, a former British deputy prime minister.

He added, “This has never happened before — and we hope it will never happen again. It was an unprecedented set of events which called for unprecedented action.”

That could mean that even if the board takes issue with how Facebook arrived at its decision, it could still agree with its conclusion.

“I would probably fall on the side of: They will not order his account restored, but with an opinion that explains a lot of things Facebook needs to change about their policies to make that outcome clearer and more predictable in the future,” Llansó said.

A point for Facebook: The board is big on human rights

Trump and his conservative allies have long accused Facebook and other social media sites of trampling on free speech by unevenly restricting their content, a charge the companies deny. The criticism borrows from the American tradition of largely unfettered self-expression, a tradition that Zuckerberg himself has proclaimed as a core value for Facebook.

But researchers said they expect the oversight board to look at Trump’s suspension through a wider human rights lens, which would put a greater emphasis on how Trump’s speech could harm others.

“What human rights law does, when it comes to freedom of expression, is it looks at not just the freedom to impart information, but also the freedom to seek and receive it, and it provides a kind of framework for thinking about the impact that speech can have on others,” Kaye said.

That doesn’t bode well for Trump, Kaye said, because it would mean Trump’s right to express himself freely on Facebook wouldn’t necessarily be an overriding factor in the board’s decision.

Still, some aren’t convinced the board will take that broad an approach to the case.

Paul Barrett, deputy director at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and a former Bloomberg columnist, argued in an article that the board’s earlier decisions “tended to frame the factual context of the disputed posts in a narrow way, an approach that can minimize the potential harm the speech in question could cause.”

He added, “If carried over to the Trump decision, these inclinations would help him.”

But onlookers should be careful not to read too much into the board’s initial rulings, Douek said.

“Predicting the future is always a bad idea, and it’s kind of stupid to do it on such a small sample,” she said.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


What Do Facebook Ads Have To Do With The Uyghur Genocide?




What Do <b>Facebook</b> Ads Have To Do With The Uyghur Genocide? thumbnail

In recent months, several reports suggested a concerning link between Facebook ads and the Uyghur genocide. In March 2021, Epoch Times reported on “evidence linking Facebook ad revenue to Chinese companies profiting from that genocide.” They indicated that one of the companies “continues selling through Facebook hair it admitted was from Uyghurs. Similar companies ‘suggested’ by the social media platform appear also to be selling Uyghur hair. Since a woman’s long hair is highly valued in Uyghur culture, the hair products being sold are almost certainly a product of the ongoing persecution, and not donated or sold freely.” These allegations come months after, in August 2020, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) seized over 13 tons of human hair products from Xinjiang. 

In this photo illustration a Facebook logo seen displayed on...

In this photo illustration a Facebook logo seen displayed on a smartphone. (Photo Illustration: … [+] Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Facebook did not respond to these allegations that it profited from ads linked to Uyghur genocide. Yet it did not take long before Facebook became the centre of attention again, because of its links with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which stands accused of committing genocide against the Uyghurs.

In April 2021, the WSJ reported that “some Facebook staff are raising concerns on internal message boards and in other employee discussions that the company is being used as a conduit for state propaganda, highlighting sponsored posts from Chinese organizations that purport to show Muslim ethnic minority Uyghurs thriving in China’s Xinjiang region, according to people familiar with the matter.” Reportedly, “a Facebook spokesman said that the ads taken out by Beijing pertaining to Xinjiang don’t violate current policies so long as the advertisers follow Facebook’s rules when purchasing them. He said the company is monitoring reports of the situation in Xinjiang ‘to help inform our approach and due diligence on this issue.’”

WSJ further reported that “Facebook hasn’t determined whether to act on the concerns, say people familiar with the matter. The company is watching how international organizations such as the United Nations respond to the situation in Xinjiang, one of the people said. The U.N. this week called on firms conducting Xinjiang-linked business to undertake “meaningful human rights due diligence” on their operations.”

Such responses to very serious allegations of benefiting from Uyghur genocide are highly inadequate. We are talking about atrocities targeting a religious group with methods including torture and abuse, rape and sexual violence, separation of children from their parents, forced sterilizations, forced abortions, forced labor and much more.

Waiting for the response from the U.N. cannot be seen as the right policy to address serious allegations of genocidal atrocities, especially considering stagnation at the U.N. and China’s powerful position there. While States and U.N. experts have been calling for action, and among others, for unfettered access to Xinjiang, this request has been ignored by the Chinese government. And so the vicious circle of impunity continues.

One would expect that Facebook would conduct a comprehensive review of the allegations and evidence in support. Ultimately, Facebook should make sure that they sever any ties with atrocities against the Uyghurs.

Read More

Continue Reading


Eutelsat Expands Use of Express Wi-Fi in Partnership With Facebook to Extend Wi-Fi Connectivity …




Eutelsat Expands Use of Express Wi-Fi in Partnership With <b>Facebook</b> to Extend Wi-Fi Connectivity ... thumbnail

PARIS–()–Regulatory News:

Eutelsat Communications (Paris:ETL) (Euronext Paris: ETL) is expanding its use of the Express Wi-Fi platform in partnership with Facebook to provide broadband services via satellite across several regions in Sub-Saharan Africa. With Express Wi-Fi, Eutelsat aims to connect thousands of people in rural and underserved communities spanning Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Kenya, Madagascar, South Africa, Cameroon, Ghana and Zimbabwe.

Express Wi-Fi is a platform developed by Facebook Connectivity that enables partners to build, grow and monetize their Wi-Fi businesses in a scalable way, while providing their customers with fast, affordable, and reliable internet access. Express Wi-Fi is used in more than 30 countries, including in multiple Asian, South American and African markets, helping millions of people connect over Wi-Fi.

Eutelsat and Facebook have previously conducted successful pilots in rural and underserved areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) enabling local businesses to offer affordable internet access to customers on a pre-paid basis. To date, Eutelsat’s use of the Express Wi-Fi platform has enabled access to affordable broadband for thousands of individuals across the DRC.

Philippe Baudrier, General Manager of Konnect Africa commented: “We are delighted to partner with Facebook in this ambitious scheme, aimed at getting more people online in the most underserved areas of sub-Saharan Africa. This initiative is the perfect example of the power of satellite connectivity to bridge the digital divide, with unmatched economic and social benefits. We are proud once again to leverage the unparalleled coverage of EUTELSAT KONNECT to satisfy this growing demand.”

“At Facebook, we’re committed to working with partners to help expand connectivity in Sub-Saharan Africa, which continues to be the region with the highest coverage gap,” said Fargani Tambeayuk, Head of Connectivity Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa, Facebook. “Connectivity is essential to ensuring access to jobs, education, healthcare and more. We’re proud to partner with Eutelsat to combine the power of the Express Wi-Fi platform and EUTELSAT KONNECT, with the goal of increasing satellite broadband coverage across rural and underserved areas of Sub-Saharan Africa.”

About Eutelsat Communications

Founded in 1977, Eutelsat Communications is one of the world’s leading satellite operators. With a global fleet of satellites and associated ground infrastructure, Eutelsat enables clients across Video, Data, Government, Fixed and Mobile Broadband markets to communicate effectively to their customers, irrespective of their location. Over 6,600 television channels operated by leading media groups are broadcast by Eutelsat to one billion viewers equipped for DTH reception or connected to terrestrial networks. Headquartered in Paris, with offices and teleports around the globe, Eutelsat assembles 1,000 men and women from 46 countries who are dedicated to delivering the highest quality of service.

For more about Eutelsat go to

About Facebook Connectivity

Connectivity is at the heart of Facebook’s mission to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. Critical to this mission is high-quality internet access, which gives people a voice and creates opportunities to share knowledge that can strengthen local communities and global economies. Facebook Connectivity works closely with partners including mobile network operators, equipment manufacturers and more to develop programs and technologies—including Express WiFi, Magma and Terragraph—that increase the availability, affordability and awareness of high-quality internet access, bringing more people online to a faster internet. To learn more, visit: – Follow us on Twitter @Eutelsat_SA

Read More

Continue Reading


Facebook Removes Ukraine’s ‘Fake’ Political ‘Influence-for-hire’ Network




<b>Facebook</b> Removes Ukraine's 'Fake' Political 'Influence-for-hire' Network thumbnail
Reuters Photo

Reuters Photo

Facebook attributed the network to individuals and entities including politician Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russian lawmaker blacklisted by the United States.

  • Reuters
  • Last Updated:May 07, 2021, 14:04 IST

Facebook Inc (FB.O) has taken down a network of hundreds of fake accounts and pages targeting people in Ukraine and linked to individuals previously sanctioned by the United States for efforts to interfere in U.S. elections, the company said on Thursday. Facebook said the network managed a long-running deceptive campaign across multiple social media platforms and other websites, posing as independent news outlets and promoting favourable content about Ukrainian politicians, including activity that was likely for hire. The company said it started its probe after a tip from the FBI.

Facebook attributed the activity to individuals and entities sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department including politician Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russian lawmaker who was blacklisted by the U.S. government in September over accusations he tried to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election won by President Joe Biden. Facebook said it removed Derkach’s accounts in October 2020.

Derkach told Reuters he would comment on Facebook’s investigation on Friday.

Facebook also attributed the network to political consultants associated with Ukrainian politicians Oleh Kulinich and Volodymyr Groysman, Ukraine’s former prime minister. Kulinich did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Groysman could not immediately be reached for comment.

Facebook said that as well as promoting these politicians, the network also pushed positive material about actors across the political spectrum, likely as a paid service. It said the activity it investigated began around 2015, was solely focused on Ukraine and posted anti-Russia content.

“You can really think of these operators as would-be influence mercenaries, renting out inauthentic online support in Ukrainian political circles,” Ben Nimmo, Facebook’s global influence operations threat intelligence lead, said on a call with reporters.

Facebook’s investigation team said Ukraine, which has been among the top sources of “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” that it removes from the site, is home to an increasing number of influence operations selling services.

Facebook said it removed 363 pages, which were followed by about 2.37 million accounts, and 477 accounts from this network for violating its rules. The network also spent about $496,000 in Facebook and Instagram ads, Facebook said.

Read all the Latest News, Breaking News and Coronavirus News here

Read More

Continue Reading