From Podium
On 29 January 2021, the Facebook Oversight Board invited public comments to the case relating to the former President Donald Trump’s Facebook account, and whether Facebook was right to remove his access to the platform indefinitely. This was our response.
Podium is a social network, in development, designed to be free of the toxicity allowed to proliferate on traditional social media. While we consider Facebook a future competitor, we support any action to make the internet a safer, more inclusive place.
That said, we cannot approach this request with any attitude besides skepticism. The recent first tranche of decisions taken by the Oversight Board clearly signalled an intent to prioritise the freedom of racists (among other offenders) over the freedom of the people they abuse.
For true freedom to exist — whether manifest as free speech, free expression, or beyond — no person can be free to restrict the freedoms of another. One person’s freedom must end where another’s begins. Any other approach inherently grants freedom only to the powerful — whether the power of political office or the arbitrary power society allots by race, creed, or identity. It is not “Free Speech” to hate, harass, deceive, or abuse. These things are corrosive to Free Speech and pretending otherwise serves only to corrode it further.
Viewed through this lens, Facebook’s action to suspend Donald Trump had an entirely positive impact on freedom and human rights. Trump had long-signalled his intent to use social media to erode the freedoms of others. This fact was never more evident than on January 6th — but it had surely been evident for years before the events of that day.
In continuing to provide a platform to Trump during those years, Facebook facilitated his attacks on the freedom and human rights of countless people — both within and without the borders of both Facebook and the United States. It cannot be denied that — both before and after his ascension to the Presidency — he used his account to promote dangerous conspiracy theories; to spread division and hate; and ultimately, frequently, to deceive.
Freedom is fundamentally about our ability to choose. If someone — acting upon disinformation — makes a choice they would not otherwise have made, that person’s freedom has been harmed.
By contrast, the suspension of Trump — a man never further than a short walk from the nearest international news camera — has suffered no real loss of platform. His ability to deceive has been lost, nothing more. You cannot conclude that he had any right to that.
All those endangered by the attempted insurrection on January 6th — including even the terrorists themselves — had a right to safety and to freedom that were knowingly threatened by Donald Trump. Facebook’s failure in this regard was not in banning him from the platform, but in refusing to provide such accountability years earlier. A failure compounded by its continued refusal to address many other users — prominent and otherwise — guilty of these same acts of harm.
Instead, Facebook delayed, hiding behind the “newsworthy” excuse. Yet if they were swift to moderate harmful content, then such content (and many of its creators) could never achieve the prominence required to become “newsworthy” in the first place. Instead, Facebook carves out an excuse for inaction — corrupting the idea of “public interest” to protect itself from criticism.
The truth is that any account with the power to say something “newsworthy” should be held to a higher standard than others. Yet Facebook applies a policy that intentionally does the opposite. An unknown user could share mild misinformation in ignorance and be banned for it. Meanwhile, the most powerful person in the world can knowingly lie to millions and escape all accountability. Trump inspired many violent acts before January 6th, just via less direct means.
Yes, Facebook alone should not have the power to decide what content can and cannot be suppressed — but it does that every day. When a racist is allowed to abuse someone without consequence, Facebook has decided that the victim’s content can be suppressed by that abuse. Inaction is not a neutral course — it is one that amplifies the power of the privileged, at the expense of the powerless.
It is far too late for Facebook to lament the power it should not have. It has that power — and a responsibility to wield it with integrity. On some level, Facebook must agree with this or the platform would have no rules whatsoever. And, yes, that power must account for users’ actions and statements outside of the platform. Of course it must. What reason could there be not to? That ignoring such vital context is even under consideration betrays an intent to avoid this responsibility.
The Facebook Oversight Board must prioritize the rights of victims over the imagined right of their abusers to victimize them. It did not escape our notice that the guidelines of this very submission provide greater protection than that currently afforded to Facebook’s users. While it is only right that the Oversight Board is protected from content that could “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety” — why are users denied that same protection?
Facebook has a duty of care to the users of its platform. All users. Not just those with the fortune and privilege to raise their grievances to your immediate attention. Instead, the “free speech” of one racist is prioritised over the freedom of an entire race; the “free speech” of one bigot over the freedom of the entire LGBTQ+ community; the “free speech” of one President over the freedom of a nation and the world.
Do better.
Andrew James Carter
CEO and Founder of Podium
