222
Restrictions on Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram lifted (www.bbc.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Meta has lifted the final restrictions on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the run up to US presidential elections in November.

The ex-US president and convicted felon’s accounts were suspended in 2021 after he praised supporters who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January.

Trump’s accounts, which combined have over 60 million followers, were re-instated in 2023 but subject to additional monitoring, which has now been removed, the social media giant said in a blog post.

Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

Yes they can. They are a private corporate and can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't target a protected class, and it doesn't.

And in particular, they didn't silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    And in particular, they didn’t silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.

    Has he been convicted of that? We can all wring our hands as much as we want, and god knows I'm not a Trump supporter, but Facebook are not going to embroil themselves into a legal battle over this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    Facebook does not have nearly as high a burden of proof as a court of law.

    Facebook most likely has a far larger budget for their legal team, too. I don't think they'd be worried about a lawsuit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They've convicted a hell of a lot of other people for it so far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So Facebook is supposed to block the GOP presidential nominee because other people were charged of a crime and he was not? We'd all like that, but come on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    no, just cuz he broke their rules... repeatedly... and says violent hateful shit... and spreads misinformation. Trump supporters whine about their bans or posts being removed when they post the vile shit they like to spew. Why does Trump get a pass?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Why does Trump get a pass?

    Because that's much easier for Facebook than dealing with the clusterfuck that would result if they didn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So political leaders get a pass to break all the rules? I don't understand your reasoning. The rules should be applied only to people without power? Facebook should just always take the "easiest" path for moderation?

    What about leaders elsewhere that explicitly call for violence or perpetrate it? Is there a line somewhere?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    He’s been convicted in the court of public opinion. Facebook doesn’t need to wait for a court to bar him from their platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They don't, but it's much easier for them this way. It's mind-boggling that so many in this thread want Facebook to go way out on a limb here and are shocked when the multi-billion dollar company takes the much easier, safer way out. Stop expecting tech megacorps to decide the presidential race for you, people. You may think you want that now, but it's a VERY bad precedent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other. There are very strong arguments that insisting on "no political discussion" is an inherently conservative stance, but by allowing one candidate to speak but the other to not they are implicitly supporting the former.

    And the US Government has made it clear that they don't consider a violent insurrection to be treason. So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other.

    And the US Government has made it clear that they don’t consider a violent insurrection to be treason.

    No they didn't. They prosecuted a LOT of people for that.

    So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?

    That's the reason. Fuck Facebook's own rules, they are trying to mitigate an attack by a fascist dictator.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago*

    No they didn’t. They prosecuted a LOT of people for that.

    And we just had a supreme court ruling that gives the ringleader immunity for anything he will ever do because he was POTUS for four years.

    Individual users? Yeah, ban them because the law applies to them. Orange shitstain? There is no legal ground for him having commit treason so it is purely a decision by the moderation staff of a company who don't want to get navy seals knocking on the door come January.

    That’s the reason. Fuck Facebook’s own rules, they are trying to mitigate an attack by a fascist dictator.

    Yes. I said that was the reason. Glad we are in agreement.

    And considering the American People would rather bicker over whether Biden is old than "holy fuck the nazis have a publicly available plan for how they are going to destroy the country"... when The People clearly won't have your back, why fight on their behalf?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other

    Yes. They have once again sided against their own rules and the law in favor of unlimited disinformation and calls for violence.

    NOT because they're taking a stand against unfair censorship. The real reason is that his stochastic terrorism breeds TONS of engagement and thus advertising income and marketable data.

    but by allowing one candidate to speak but the other to not they are implicitly supporting the former.

    That would have been true if either both or neither had exhibited a pattern of blatant contempt for the rules of the platform. Since only one did that, it's preferential treatment to NOT kick him off permanently.

    And the US Government has made it clear that they don't consider a violent insurrection to be treason

    Prosecutors sacrifying full justice and accuracy in exchange for an easier path to conviction isn't the US government making anything clear.

    So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?

    Because aiding and abetting a fascist uprising by voiding the rules that everyone else has to abide by isn't an admirable or even acceptable thing to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent