Facebook’s “Supreme Court” made its long-awaited decision on the final suspension of the former president of the United States on May 5.
Facebook and Instagram’s decision to suspend Donald Trump’s account is reasonable, but the fact that this suspension has no clear time limit may be disproportionate. According to estimates on May 5 (Wednesday), the social network’s “highest The court’s ability to resolve conflicts is related to its moderation.
If it substantially confirms the blocking of Mr. Trump, the court Consider his decision he is “Inappropriate” From the Facebook section “Indefinite sanctions for indefinite suspension”. Sanctions commonly adopted by social networks include temporarily suspending accounts or permanently deleting accounts. The court asks Facebook “According to the rules applicable to other users, review this case and justify a reasonable response”, Within six months.
After pro-Trump activists invaded the Capitol, Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts were suspended on January 7, and the Capitol challenged his defeat in the presidential election. Five people were killed in this attack, and Facebook, like Twitter, believed that the outgoing president had used his social media account to incite supporters to attack the main symbol of American democracy.
Donald Trump and his supporters strongly opposed these decisions, arguing that he was “Reviewed”.Since then, he has repeatedly proposed the idea of starting his own social network, but this project has never been realized-Mr. Trump released it on May 5 A new personal blog, In which he posted a short message, reminding people of the messages he wrote on Twitter before.
Facebook’s “Supreme Court” (formally known as the “Board of Supervisors”) is a legal UFO. It was designed by Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of the social network, in early 2018 to avoid criticism and accusations that he has too much control over the content of the platform. This structure brings together 40 people, most of whom are lawyers, members of NGOs or former public officials, such as the former Prime Minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Helle Thorning-Schmidt). It has the right to withdraw or confirm the deletion of content or accounts, and its decision is binding. Any aggrieved user can apply to the committee, which will decide which cases to examine in detail. The selected documents will undergo a public consultation process, which has received more than 9,000 responses in Mr. Trump’s case.
The court took a long time to establish the decision on behalf of Mr. Trump. On the one hand, it alleviated Facebook’s responsibility for content review and related disputes. However, there is still a problem: the important choices are still made by the private law structure, which is independent of Facebook but created and funded by it. For its destroyers, the latter perform tasks that should be undertaken by all countries and formulate rules that violate the norms of international law.