Trump and Facebook: Facing Potential Judgments

The Potential Return of Trump to Facebook

Months after Facebook removed Donald Trump’s access to its platform, the former president may be on the verge of regaining his prominent social media presence.

A pivotal decision regarding Trump’s Facebook privileges will be rendered by Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday. The board will either reinstate his account or impose a permanent ban. Regardless of the outcome, this represents a significant moment for Facebook’s innovative approach to outsourcing challenging content moderation decisions.

Initial Suspension and Referral to the Oversight Board

Following the events at the Capitol, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Trump’s suspension. Initially intended as a temporary measure, the decision was subsequently referred to the Oversight Board after two weeks. Zuckerberg stated in January that the risks associated with allowing Trump continued access during that period were unacceptable.

Nick Clegg, Facebook’s VP of Global Affairs, previously a British politician, voiced optimism that the board would support the company’s judgment. He characterized Trump’s suspension as a response to an “unprecedented set of events which called for unprecedented action.”

While Trump’s actions on January 6th incited violence, similar incidents had occurred previously. After the death of George Floyd, Trump made a controversial statement on social media – “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” – a phrase with racist undertones. Facebook did not take action at that time, leading to internal dissent.

Throughout his four years in office, Trump repeatedly tested Facebook’s boundaries. However, the platform consistently maintained a stance of allowing all forms of speech, even as other social networks adopted stricter policies.

Zuckerberg’s Stance on Free Speech

In 2019, Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s permissive approach, invoking the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. He argued that while free expression can be turbulent, it ultimately drives progress. “We want the progress that comes from free expression, but not the tension,” he said. However, King’s daughter strongly disagreed with this perspective.

Just over a year later, with other platforms enacting similar restrictions and Trump leaving office, Zuckerberg revised his position on free speech.

Prior to 2021, Facebook was a significant source of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist content. The platform hosted numerous armed groups organizing for violence and facilitated the spread of QAnon, which evolved from a fringe belief to a mainstream political movement.

These forces culminated in the violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, an event Facebook executives initially described as spontaneous, despite its open planning on the platform.

Understanding the Oversight Board

Facebook’s Oversight Board commenced reviewing cases in October of last year. Cases can be referred by Facebook, as with Trump’s situation, or users can appeal content moderation decisions directly to the board. A five-member panel from the 20 total members assesses the content and makes a decision, which requires approval from a majority of the full board.

Initially, the board could only reinstate content that had been removed. However, in April, it began accepting reviews of content that remained on the platform.

Last month, Pamela Karlan, a Stanford professor and voting rights scholar, departed the board to join the Biden administration. Her replacement, Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, expressed concerns in an op-ed that a permanent ban on Trump could establish a problematic precedent. Nossel joined the board too late to participate in the Trump decision.

The board’s initial rulings have generally favored restoring content that was previously removed. While future decisions will likely address a wider range of content moderation issues, none carry the weight of the Trump case.

For example, the Oversight Board voted to restore an image of a woman’s nipples in the context of a breast cancer post. In another instance, the board determined that a quote from a Nazi figure did not warrant removal as it wasn’t an endorsement of Nazi ideology. The board can offer policy recommendations to Facebook, but the company is not obligated to implement them.

Future Ambitions of the Oversight Board

The Oversight Board, comprised of global activists, political figures, and academics, may aspire to extend its influence beyond Facebook. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the board’s co-chair and former Prime Minister of Denmark, suggested that other social media companies could “join” the project, which is intentionally branded separately from Facebook. (The group is known as the “Oversight Board,” despite being commonly referred to as the “Facebook Oversight Board.”)

Thorning-Schmidt stated that this represents the first instance of content moderation being conducted independently of a major social media platform, calling it a “historic” development.

Facebook’s experiment with outsourcing policy decisions is still in its early stages. The Trump case provides the Oversight Board with an opportunity to demonstrate its authority. It remains to be seen whether the board will prove capable of keeping a world leader accountable or of operating independently from its parent company.

If Trump is reinstated, Facebook can attribute it to the board’s decision and avoid further public relations challenges. If the board upholds the ban, Facebook can deflect criticism, knowing that another entity has taken responsibility for the controversial decision. Ultimately, this situation presents a potential win-win scenario for Facebook.