Thread by @evelyndouek

After thinking about it, I think Facebook should refer its Trump suspension to the @OversightBoard, and it should use the expedited process to do so.

You should to.

https://twitter.com/evelyndouek/status/1347729718112624640

This is one of the most consequential and high profile decisions in content moderation, and we don't trust that it was made on principal rather than business expediency.

This is *exactly* what the @OversightBoard and its expedited process is for. If not now, when?

The usual calls for @OversightBoard intervention are quiet, but we should not only want checks and balances for decisions we agree with.

The strongest argument against is that this is a sui generis decision with no general applicability, so why bother.

I don't think that's true.

First, there is always going to be the issue of how to balance the public interest in holding leaders to account with safety interests. This sadly will not be the last time this issue comes up.

Next, this decision raises a very important question of how much Facebook should look off its platform to surrounding social context in making its decisions.

There's the issue of remedy: the "indefinite" and at large suspension is strange. It leads to extraordinary uncertainty, and we're still just waiting to see how Zuck feels when Trump's term is over. That's a pretty shitty way for this to play out!

The @OversightBoard was created to be a check and balance on Facebook's decision-making processes. It was created to give Facebook's decisions legitimacy, and make them more than just "Mark decides".

And so Mark should decide to refer this decision to them.

And the original tweet should say "too" obviously.

Damnit.

It would be a way for Facebook to show that this was exactly the kind of principled decision-making they said it was in their fig-leaf rationale. We should make them live up to those sentiments, not only when it suits us.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…