Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision
-
I don't understand how this stuff works, I don't have a Facebook account, no twitter, and I still don't have enough hours in a day.
Couldn't Trump open fake accounts, say what he likes, and when he gets the John Trump facebook account closed for example, he then opens up yet another, like Delbert Ho. He could hire someone to do nothing but open up fake accounts on all social media sites day after day.
Would it work, if he wanted to do something like this? AFAIK, it doesn't take a social security number to open an account. What am I missing?
-
@rainman said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
Couldn't Trump open fake accounts, say what he likes, and when he gets the John Trump facebook account closed for example, he then opens up yet another, like Delbert Ho. He could hire someone to do nothing but open up fake accounts on all social media sites day after day.
Would it work, if he wanted to do something like this? AFAIK, it doesn't take a social security number to open an account. What am I missing?
It won’t work if the objective is for Trump to get the message out to his followers because a large portion of the followers of Trump are a cult of personality, not a cult of idea or ideology. They follow Trump even when Trump contradicts himselves from one day to the next, and they ignore anyone who says the same things that Trump used to say as long as that someone is not Trump.
-
I think Ax is pretty much right. People follow Presdient Trump because of who he is more than what he says. His policies are not the "brand", he is the "brand".
-
@taiwan_girl said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
I think Ax is pretty much right. People follow Presdient Trump because of who he is more than what he says. His policies are not the "brand", he is the "brand".
Trump is a disgusting fool, and everybody who supported him should be ashamed of themselves.
-
Democrats insist they are not attacking free speech, just combating “disinformation.” After all, they say, private companies have every right to control speech — unless you are, say, a bakery opposed to preparing a cake for a same-sex wedding, or a company contributing to political causes. The current mantra defending Facebook’s corporate speech rights seems strikingly out of sync with years of Democrats and political activists demanding the curtailment of such rights.
(Senator Elizabeth) Warren felt that one company (Masterpiece Cakeshop) can be forced to speak while another corporation (Facebook) should be able to stop others from speaking. When Facebook barred Trump, Warren declared: "I'm glad that Donald Trump is not going to be on Facebook. Suits me.” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) also celebrated and added: “Facebook must ban him. Which is to say, forever.”
Obviously, these politicians would insist that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is about discrimination while the Facebook controversy is about disinformation. However, some of us have long viewed all of these controversies as about free speech. Indeed, taking a free speech approach avoids the hypocrisy on both sides.
Under a free speech approach, cakeshop owners have a right to refuse to prepare cakes that offend their deep-felt values, including religious, political or social values. Thus, a Jewish cakeshop owner should be able to decline to make a “Mein Kampf” cake for a local skinhead group, a Black owner to decline to make a white supremacist-themed cake, or a gay baker to decline to make a cake with anti-LGBT slogans. While these bakers cannot discriminate in selling prepared cakes, the act of decorating a cake is a form of expression, and requiring such preparation is a form of compelled speech.
In defending Big Tech’s right to censor people, University of California at Irvine law professor Richard Hasen declared that “Twitter is a private company, and it is entitled to include or exclude people as it sees fit." That is clearly true under the First Amendment. It also should be true of others who seek to speak (or not speak) as corporations, from bakeries to sports teams.
Yet, when the Supreme Court sent back the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2018 for further proceedings, an irate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared: “Masterpiece Cakeshop is a commercial bakery open to the public, and such services clearly must be made available to the public on equal terms … No business or organization open to the public should hide their discriminatory practices behind the guise of religious liberty.” But Pelosi applauded when social media companies barred some members of the public based on viewpoint discrimination on subjects ranging from climate change to vaccines to election
-
-
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-oversight-board-recommendations-trump/
Facebook announced that it will keep Trump’s Facebook account suspended for two years (the clock started on Jan.7, 2021), and at the end of the two years Facebook will engage experts to assess whether the Trump threat against public safety has receded enough to warrant reinstatement.
-
@axtremus said in Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Ban Decision:
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-oversight-board-recommendations-trump/
Facebook announced that it will keep Trump’s Facebook account suspended for two years (the clock started on Jan.7, 2021), and at the end of the two years Facebook will engage experts to assess whether the Trump threat against public safety has receded enough to warrant reinstatement.
I hope they include diversity and inclusion experts in the committee who will decide this.
