This decision will be closely scrutinized … Facebook asked, Thursday, January 21, its “Supreme Court” to rule on the suspension of Donald Trump’s account. This external entity was precisely created by Mark Zuckerberg’s social network to decide on appeal contested moderation cases. Her decision will be known within a few weeks and she will be “Binding” because Facebook is committed to applying it.
The “supreme court” – officially called the supervisory board – will for the first time have to confirm or reverse, at the request of Facebook, a decision, among the most controversial in its history: the temporary suspension, for at least two weeks, of the account of the former President of the United States, announced on January 7 after the violent invasion of the Capitol. Facebook then clarified that the freezing of Mr. Trump’s account would continue for “An indefinite period”.
A panel of five members
As with all its decisions, this “supreme court” will bring together a panel of five members, including at least one American. The 40 personalities who make up the council are often lawyers, members of NGOs or former public officials, such as Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Prime Minister of Denmark. The panel will first collect on its site the remarks of the parties who wish to speak – including that of Mr. Trump.
“We believe that our decision was necessary and good”, Facebook wrote in its press release, recalling having acted in a context “Unpublished”, in order to avoid further violence.
The suspension sparked a very lively debate, recalls the company:
“The reactions to our decision show the delicate balance we are asking private companies to maintain. Some have said that Facebook should have banned President Trump a long time ago and that the violence on Capitol Hill itself was a product of social media; others saw it as an unacceptable manifestation of the power of big business over freedom of expression. “
Since he put forward the idea of a “supreme court” in early 2018, Mark Zuckerberg has hammered home the idea that a CEO or a company should not make important decisions of moderation alone. Slow to set up, this “supreme court” has so far not allowed it to escape criticism of its content policy, especially during the US presidential campaign.
By now soliciting this outside entity, he is trying to shift some of the responsibility for a much contested decision. The “court”, a private law legal UFO, will play part of its credibility on this case. His verdict could also reignite the debate on the action of other social networks, such as Twitter, which permanently deleted Mr. Trump’s account.
