File:John Samples on Reason TV.jpg
Original file (1,387 × 1,045 pixels, file size: 279 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
 | This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help. |
Summary
| Description |
English: Facebook’s Oversight Board Was Right to Ban Trump
It's a working model for non-state governance in cyberspace that is vastly preferable to government control of social media. Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. When Facebook's independent Oversight Board recently upheld the social media platform's ban on former President Donald Trump, the decision drew mostly negative reviews, with press outlets calling it "little more than judicial theater" or a "distraction" from more serious issues raised by Big Tech. The Oversight Board comprises 20 individuals with backgrounds in tech, law, politics, and free speech activism. It's funded by an irrevocable trust set up by Facebook and has a legally binding final say over suspensions. Its critics are wrong in at least two major ways. First, the board made the right call in this case. It agreed that by its own rules, Facebook was justified in shutting down Trump after he twice posted praise of violent rioters even as they raised hell in the Capitol. It also correctly found that Facebook violated its terms of service by suspending Trump indefinitely. The board has given Mark Zuckerberg and company up to six months to render a final decision on the former president. Second, and more importantly, the board is a serious model for non-state governance in cyberspace. It's far from perfect, but it's preferable to rules being forced on the service by politicians. Only up and running since the start of this year, the board has already been twice as likely to overturn Facebook's decisions as it is to uphold them, a strong show of accountability and seriousness of purpose. In one case, the board restored images of naked breasts in a post about cancer that had been removed by an automated system. The board chastised the platform for making the decision without "proper human oversight." In another, Facebook had removed a post that inaccurately quoted Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and implicitly compared him to Trump. Because Goebbels is on a list of prohibited people, the site took down the post even though it was intended as critical of both the Nazi and Trump. "Any rules which restrict freedom of expression must be clear, precise and publicly accessible," reads the decision, which also faulted Facebook for failing to inform the user why his post was originally taken down. "I think there is actually a bit of a libertarian paradox here," John Samples, a vice president at the Cato Institute and a member of the Oversight Board, tells Reason in an interview. On the one hand, he says, there's an interest in no content moderation and leaving all decisions of what's on Facebook (or any other site) to end users who can control what they engage via filters and other tools. On the other hand, social media platforms are corporations that are trying to maximize shareholder value and the number of users by creating particular types of environments. He says that a private company moderating content on its platform is fully in keeping with libertarian principles. Calls to take away the rights of platforms to police their own sites are growing across the political spectrum. Republicans in Florida are trying to restrict social media platforms from banning users while Democrats in Colorado are pushing bans on hate speech. Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and conservatives like Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) talk about treating social media platforms as common carriers, akin to telephone companies, that would be tightly regulated by the government.
|
| Date | |
| Source | Facebook’s Oversight Board Was Right to Ban Trump |
| Author | ReasonTV |
Licensing
.svg){kind=icon}
- You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
- Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
|
This file, which was originally posted to
Facebook’s Oversight Board Was Right to Ban Trump, was reviewed on 15 June 2022 by reviewer Leoboudv, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date.
|
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
| Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| current | 22:18, 3 January 2022 | | 1,387 × 1,045 (279 KB) | GRuban | {{Information |description={{en|1=Facebook’s Oversight Board Was Right to Ban Trump It's a working model for non-state governance in cyberspace that is vastly preferable to government control of social media. ------------------ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/ReasonTV Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian... |
File usage
Global file usage
The following other wikis use this file:
- Usage on www.wikidata.org
