In Facebook’s Oversight Board post upholding the ban on former President Donald Trump, the Board wrote that “it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension.”
Adding that, “Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.”
The Board also found Facebook violated its own rules by imposing a suspension that was ‘indefinite.’ This penalty is not described in Facebook’s content policies. It has no clear criteria and gives Facebook total discretion on when to impose or lift it.
— Oversight Board (@OversightBoard) May 5, 2021
The Board is calling on Facebook to “review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform.”
The Board says they will give Facebook six months to complete the review of its actions.
Facebook cannot make up the rules as it goes, and anyone concerned about its power should be concerned about allowing this. Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook is essential for ensuring the company treats users fairly. This is what the Board stands for.
— Oversight Board (@OversightBoard) May 5, 2021
Furthermore, the Oversight Board wrote that “it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an ‘indefinite’ suspension.”
It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.
In applying this penalty, Facebook did not follow a clear, published procedure. ‘Indefinite’ suspensions are not described in the company’s content policies. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.
It is Facebook’s role to create necessary and proportionate penalties that respond to severe violations of its content policies. The Board’s role is to ensure that Facebook’s rules and processes are consistent with its content policies, its values and its human rights commitments.
In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.
On a post on Twitter, the Oversight Board wrote,
Restrictions on speech are often imposed by powerful state actors against dissidents and political oppositions. Facebook must resist pressure from governments to silence political opposition, and stand up for free expression.
If Facebook opts for a suspension for a set period of time for influential users, the company should assess the risk of the user inciting significant harm before the suspension ends. If the risk remains, Facebook should impose another suspension.
— Oversight Board (@OversightBoard) May 5, 2021
Restrictions on speech are often imposed by powerful state actors against dissidents and political oppositions. Facebook must resist pressure from governments to silence political opposition, and stand up for free expression.
— Oversight Board (@OversightBoard) May 5, 2021
Finally, we urged Facebook to conduct a review into its contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and political tensions that led to the events of January 6. This should look at Facebook’s design and policy choices that may allow its platform to be abused.
— Oversight Board (@OversightBoard) May 5, 2021
More details to come.