leomoon
Well-known member
Experts are criticizing Facebook parent company Meta for its decision to allow ex-president Donald Trump to return to its platform two years after CEO Mark Zuckerberg cited the “use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government” as the basis for an immediate ban of the then-outgoing president.
"The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box," Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said in a statement announcing it is lifting its suspension of the ex-president despite his increased engagement with far-right extremists.
"We know that any decision we make on this issue will be fiercely criticized," Clegg said. "Reasonable people will disagree over whether it is the right decision. But a decision had to be made, so we have tried to make it as best we can in a way that is consistent with our values and the process we established in response to the Oversight Board’s guidance."
Meta could have allowed its suspension to stand, pointing to the many criminal investigations into Trump, or the rise of hate and fascism in the U.S. and around the world. Meta could also have examined Trump's posts on his own social media platform, Truth Social, and determined if they met Facebook's community standards.
After Meta published its decision, Media Matters for America re-posted its 2021 investigation of more than 6000 of Trump's tweets "before he was suspended, we found that Trump used his Facebook page to attack others and spread misinformation. Such posts made up roughly 24% of his total posts and roughly 36% of all his interactions."
Many are expressing anger, outrage, and concern at Meta's decision, while some are calling up "dangerous."
The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), founded by former Southern Poverty Law Center researchers, warns that "Facebook’s decision to let Trump back on is dangerous and shortsighted."
Former federal corruption prosecutor Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, finds Meta's decision "beyond unacceptable."
"Meta says the risk posed by Donald Trump has 'sufficiently receded.' In what world?" he asks. "He is still posting lies and misinformation and vitriol on social media. He has never disavowed his attempt to overturn an election. This is beyond unacceptable."
But attorney Tristan Snell, who successfully prosecuted the Trump University case for the New York Attorney General's Office, offers a different point of view.
"I don’t care if Trump is back on Facebook. It’ll be tough for him to access his account from prison."
"The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box," Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said in a statement announcing it is lifting its suspension of the ex-president despite his increased engagement with far-right extremists.
"We know that any decision we make on this issue will be fiercely criticized," Clegg said. "Reasonable people will disagree over whether it is the right decision. But a decision had to be made, so we have tried to make it as best we can in a way that is consistent with our values and the process we established in response to the Oversight Board’s guidance."
Meta could have allowed its suspension to stand, pointing to the many criminal investigations into Trump, or the rise of hate and fascism in the U.S. and around the world. Meta could also have examined Trump's posts on his own social media platform, Truth Social, and determined if they met Facebook's community standards.
After Meta published its decision, Media Matters for America re-posted its 2021 investigation of more than 6000 of Trump's tweets "before he was suspended, we found that Trump used his Facebook page to attack others and spread misinformation. Such posts made up roughly 24% of his total posts and roughly 36% of all his interactions."
Many are expressing anger, outrage, and concern at Meta's decision, while some are calling up "dangerous."
The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), founded by former Southern Poverty Law Center researchers, warns that "Facebook’s decision to let Trump back on is dangerous and shortsighted."
Former federal corruption prosecutor Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, finds Meta's decision "beyond unacceptable."
"Meta says the risk posed by Donald Trump has 'sufficiently receded.' In what world?" he asks. "He is still posting lies and misinformation and vitriol on social media. He has never disavowed his attempt to overturn an election. This is beyond unacceptable."
But attorney Tristan Snell, who successfully prosecuted the Trump University case for the New York Attorney General's Office, offers a different point of view.
"I don’t care if Trump is back on Facebook. It’ll be tough for him to access his account from prison."
