East Bay Times

Facebook is better off without Donald Trump

- By Greg Bensinger Greg Bensinger is a member of the New York Times editorial board.

If you are a public official, there’s no more effective or efficient place to lie than on Facebook. It’s company policy — meaning the policy of the chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg — to roll out the red carpet to all manner of political falsehood and obfuscatio­n.

Zuckerberg has said that it’s not the company’s job to “be arbiters of truth” and that allowing posts from well-known people allows the public to make informed decisions. Yet every day Facebook blocks or deletes posts from Average Joes who violate its policies, including propagatin­g untruths and hateful speech.

Facebook made the right decision to indefinite­ly ban Donald Trump from contributi­ng to the site following his dangerous (and policy-violating) posts inciting January’s terrifying blitz on the Capitol.

The company’s outside oversight board — a handpicked, global set of scholars, journalist­s, politician­s and other luminaries — is reviewing the suspension and will rule in the coming weeks. The board should uphold the decision to keep Trump off the site.

If the oversight board were to restore Trump’s account, it would stand as an affirmatio­n of Facebook’s self-serving policies permitting the most divisive and engaging content to remain and a clarion call to leaders like Rodrigo Duterte and Jair Bolsonaro, who have similarly peddled in misinforma­tion, to keep on posting.

“Facebook created this engine of amplificat­ion. They know exactly how widely these posts can spread and why they should stand in the way,” said Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor. “When people violate their rules, they should all be held to the same standards.”

In other words, when rules are enforced inconsiste­ntly, why should anyone respect them?

It’s not as if Facebook didn’t have ample evidence that its site could and would be used to incite real-world violence. Left to its own devices, the company allowed bigoted and provocativ­e posts to remain, such as Trump’s threat to protesters after George Floyd’s death that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” an external audit found.

Even two years into Trump’s term, Facebook admitted it hadn’t done enough to prevent its site from being used “to foment division and incite offline violence.” But nothing much changed.

So, Trump most likely felt emboldened after spending years flouting Facebook’s rules about election misinforma­tion, the pandemic and the glorificat­ion of violence with only feeble blowback from the company. In just his final year in office, roughly a quarter of his 6,081 posts contained misinforma­tion, lies or harmful rhetoric, according to the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America. Abroad, Facebook has been used by politician­s to promote the harming of Filipino citizens, the destructio­n of mosques and a genocide of the largely Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar.

Facebook and other social media sites’ caution about taking down posts or accounts in democratic elections may be understand­able, but prominent people are more likely to be believed, which is why the company’s standards should be higher for them, not the other way around. There is a growing body of evidence that far from being dispassion­ate, Facebook’s software algorithms are designed to amplify and more broadly spread untrustwor­thy or extreme content, essential to keeping users on the site longer, where they can see more lucrative advertisem­ents.

But removing accounts that repeatedly violate the social media sites’ norms has proved to be an effective way to stop the spread of hateful or dishonest content. Hoping to both have and eat their cake, Facebook and Twitter tried labeling problemati­c posts with warnings and links to other sites, which few people notice, while doing little to stop the posts’ disseminat­ion.

The Facebook oversight board has the opportunit­y to defend the sanctity of the democratic process and draw a line in the sand for those who, like Trump, would undermine it with false claims that an election was stolen or fraudulent. Upholding the former president’s social media ban would go a long way toward achieving that.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States