The decision of Facebook and Instagram to suspend the accounts of Donald Trump was justified, but the fact that this suspension is without a clear time limit is probably disproportionate, estimated Wednesday May 5 the “supreme court” of the social network, competent for the conflicts which relate to its moderation. The social network is ordered to review its rules in this area, and therefore the case of Mr. Trump, within six months. A decision that surprised because it mainly refers Facebook to its “Responsibilities”.
If it essentially validated the blocking of Mr. Trump, the court considers in its decision that he was not “Not appropriate” from Facebook“Impose an indefinite sanction of indefinite suspension”. The sanctions usually taken by the social network include the temporary suspension or the permanent deletion of the account. The court asks Facebook to “Review this case and justify a proportionate response, based on the rules applied to other users”.
Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts were suspended on January 7, after pro-Trump activists invaded the Capitol who challenged his defeat in the presidential election. Five people were killed in the attack, and Facebook, like Twitter, at the time considered that the outgoing president had used his social media accounts to incite his supporters to attack the main symbol of American democracy. .
Page Contents
“Determine a way to act proportionate”
” [La cour] did not ask us to immediately put Mr. Trump’s account back online, and did not give us an estimate of the duration of the sanctions which he considered legitimate ”, reacted Nick Clegg, head of public policy at Facebook. “ It is the unlimited nature of the suspension ” which is specifically targeted, notes Clegg, who says Facebook “Will study the decision and determine a way to act which will be clear and proportionate”.
In detail, the court explains in its decision that it is not for it to determine whether or not Mr. Trump should be banned for life from Facebook. The members of this commission believe that it is up to Facebook to set clear rules for users, including heads of state, and to set clear sanctions for behavior prohibited on the platform.
The court therefore asks the social network to choose one of the following three options: a definitive ban on Donald Trump; the setting of a clear suspension period, after which the former president can return to social networks; or a lifting of the suspension.
A “legal UFO” structure
Donald Trump, as well as his supporters, strongly contested these suspensions, believing that he was “Censored”. He has since raised the idea of starting his own social network several times, but this project never came to fruition – Mr. Trump however posted a new personal blog on May 5, on which he posts short messages. reminiscent of those he previously wrote on Twitter. Mr. Trump issued a statement on May 5 stating that ” “What Facebook, Twitter and Google have done is an absolute disgrace”.
Facebook’s “Supreme Court” (officially called the “Supervisory Board”) is a legal UFO. It was designed in early 2018 by the founder of the social network, Mark Zuckerberg, to ward off criticism accusing him of having too much power over the content of the platform.
This structure brings together forty personalities, mostly lawyers, members of NGOs or former public officials, such as Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Prime Minister of Denmark. It has the power to reverse or confirm deletions of content or accounts, and its decisions are binding. Any aggrieved user can apply to this committee, which decides which cases it will examine in detail. The selected files are subject to a public consultation process, which, in Mr. Trump’s case, has garnered more than 9,000 responses.
Facebook’s “supreme court”, which took a long time to set up, was designed to “relieve” the social network on the one hand of its responsibility for content moderation issues and associated controversies, by entrusted to an independent entity. The commission has been regularly criticized over the past two years for entrusting vital responsibilities to a private law structure, admittedly independent of the social network, but created and financed by the company. For its detractors, the latter performs missions that should fall to States, and enacts rules that contravene the norms of international law.
Role still unclear
One of the questions posed by the decision on Donald Trump is the very usefulness of this “supreme court”. Indeed, the instance gives the impression of referring the substantive arbitration to Facebook, while the structure was precisely created for specialists to settle the most thorny cases. But the court has just specifically refused to do so. “By applying a vague sanction without clear criteria, then by transmitting this case to the court for it to be resolved, Facebook has sought to escape its responsibilities”, accuses the text of the decision.
Journalists should “Highlight the way in which this structure can neither build nor set rules and jurisprudence that Facebook must follow”, adds on Twitter Michael Veale, professor of law at University College London. The NGO critic Real Facebook Oversight Board goes further, saying in a statement that “The decision shows that the experience of “Supreme Court” of Facebook failed “ and that the board will continue to “Send any important decision on the fly to Facebook”.
The co-president of the court, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, however defended herself from “Passing the buck to Facebook”. “Independent oversight is important, for anyone concerned about the excessive concentration of power in the hands of companies like Facebook, she argued. It is about moving from arbitrariness to clear rules applied with justice. This is important for all political leaders around the world, but also for all political dissidents who depend on Facebook to communicate. “
