Own platform after social media exclusion
The blogging section 'From the Desk of Donald J. Trump' launched on Tuesday
is reminiscent of Twitter.
Except that only Trump's messages are featured.
Visitors can share his posts, photos, and videos on Twitter or Facebook,
but not post a reaction or participate in a debate.
After the Capitol invasion last January, Trump was banned from Twitter,
Facebook and YouTube, among other places., because he had stimulated his
followers there.
Independent Facebook oversight body, the Oversight Board. - will decide
this Wednesday at 6 p.m. (Belgian), whether Trump's Facebook ban is still in
effect.
As for the Twitter ban, it is permanent, as the company had previously
made known.
YouTube, for its part, will agree to unblock Trump's profile when 'the
risk of violence has decreased'.
Facebook oversight decision
Facebook's supervisory board is set to decide Wednesday whether former
U.S. President Donald Trump can return to the social network.
He was banned after the assault on the Capitol by his supporters in
January.
The decision of this "supreme court" is crucial.
It is to know if this mechanism invented to decide the most difficult
questions of moderation can hold the road.
Americans may wake up on Wednesday, May 5, to discover a returnee on
their favorite social network.
Facebook's supervisory board is due to announce at 9 a.m.
Whether Donald Trump can once again express himself on the platform with
nearly three billion users worldwide.
The case of the former U.S. president represents a key test for this
young structure, dubbed the "supreme court" of Facebook.
It was established by Mark Zuckerberg in October 2020 to deal with the
thorniest and the most controversial moderation cases.
A "council of elders" to respond to criticism
Indeed, it is difficult to venture on a more slippery path than that of
the fate reserved by social networks to Donald Trump…
After the assault led by his
supporters against the Capitol in Washington on January 6.
Facebook decided to ban him indefinitely for having published a video in
which he called on the attackers “to go home”.
While adding that he "loved
them very much", had earned the social network criticism from all sides.
For some, Facebook had reacted late, letting the leader distill his
hateful messages for far too long.
While others felt that censoring a head of state, however controversial,
set a dangerous precedent.
Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that he expected to see the sanction
against Donald Trump challenged.
"Many people have said that a private company should not make this
kind of decision on its own.
We agree," the Facebook CEO had said.
That's why the group took the matter to its "supreme court."
After all, isn't that what this structure was created for?
The genesis of the Facebook Supervisory Board dates back to 2018.
The social network was then criticized from all sides.
It was mired in the Cambridge
Analytica scandal - which had to do with a huge leak of personal data used for
political propaganda –
While the memory of the Russian
campaign on Facebook to influence the 2016 US presidential election remained
vivid.
The concept of an independent "council of elders" that would act
as a sort of quasi-court was then suggested to Mark Zuckerberg by Noah Feldman.
Noah is a law professor at Harvard University, knowing for having helped
write the new Iraqi Constitution.
.
The Facebook boss jumped at the idea.
"He felt like he couldn't
deal with product development anymore and had to spend all his energy dealing
with policy issues.
"Says Kate Klonick; a legal scholar at Saint John's University.
An Oversight Board would take some of the burdens off him.
After months of consultations around the world, Facebook managed to
gather a committee of twenty experts from different countries and from the academic
world.
These "judges" are, of
course, not unanimous in the United States. Conservatives denounce a panel that
is "too left-wing".
Donald Trump even called Mark
Zuckerberg personally complains about the appointment of Pamela Karlan.
Pamela Karlan is a lawyer who had testified against him in the first
impeachment trial.
The Democrats also have complaints, especially about the presence of a former
judge.
Who had defended in 2000 the
right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexuals from their ranks?
Decisions that are binding on Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg stands firm.
The Supervisory Board can be seized by Facebook or users who feel
aggrieved.
In the latter case, it is the experts who decide whether the grievance
is legitimate and worth investigating.
For each case, Facebook then appoints five committee members who will be
responsible for deciding the case.
Their names are kept secret "to avoid any lobbying", explains
the Washington Post.
They then have 90 days to come to
a conclusion.
Which is submitted to the rest of
the members of the Supervisory Board and who can only oppose it by a majority
vote.
A decision that goes beyond Donald Trump
The experts of the Supervisory Board are aware that they have no room
for error in this matter.
They were supposed to render their decision at the end of March.
But asked for and obtained an extension because of the "very
sensitive" nature of this issue.
They know that this decision, which is eagerly awaited.
It will be an opportunity for them to respond to the main criticism leveled
at them: that of independence.
"They are all recognized experts in their field, but they are linked
to Facebook and, as such.
There will always be doubts about the transparency of their decision,"
explains Eliska Pirkova.
The Trump case will have to allow them - or not…
To prove that they are legitimate to be the supreme judges of what can
or cannot be said on the most powerful social network.
Facebook loses no matter what the decision
But on the other hand, if they let him back in. "that leaves him
free to use Facebook to continue destabilizing American democracy.
Other leaders with populist tendencies could jump into the breach and
consider that they now also have the right to use this platform.
They will use this platform to "spread hateful content".
So there is no good end to this story for Mark Zuckerberg, notes Martin
Moore. "
Facebook loses in both cases, because whatever the decision of the
Supervisory Board will only underline that this social network has too much
influence.
Namely, an influence on the public debate on an international scale…
