Facebook’s Oversight Board is going to review Facebook’s decision to deplatform Trump. Here’s what @knightcolumbia submitted to the FOB earlier today. 1/X knightcolumbia.org/documents/subm…
The first part of our argument will be familiar to anyone who has heard us talk about Twitter’s decision to ban Trump. 2/X
In the second part, we raise some concerns about the FOB’s mandate. 3/X
We argue that the Trump case highlights the problems with the FOB’s mandate especially starkly. 4/X
And we caution the FOB against answering the Trump question on Facebook’s terms. 5/X
Rather than answer the question now, we say, the FOB should insist that Facebook commission an independent study into how its design decisions may have helped create the circumstances that made Trump’s statements on Jan. 6, online and offline, so dangerous. 6/X
Why didn’t we just argue that the FOB’s mandate be expanded to encompass design decisions? Because it seems unlikely to us that Facebook will ever give the FOB authority over decisions that are so central to its business model. 7/X
It’s more realistic, we think, to hope that the FOB can influence Facebook’s design decisions even if it doesn’t have formal authority to review them. 8/X
Looking forward to hearing reactions to all of this. FIN
And on this point, see @Klonick big New Yorker piece, posted today. newyorker.com/tech/annals-of…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jameel Jaffer

Jameel Jaffer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JameelJaffer

20 Jan
The new admin has taken important steps to make government more transparent and reaffirm the freedoms of speech and the press. Here are some of them. /X
It has said it will publish White House visitor logs. /2 politico.com/news/2021/01/1…
We litigated this with @CREWcrew, and we highlighted the importance of this transparency in our First Amendment Agenda for the New Administration, which is here. /3 knightcolumbia.org/content/a-firs…
Read 8 tweets
7 Jan
Some quick thoughts about the social media companies suspending Trump’s accounts. /1 nytimes.com/2021/01/07/tec…
The platforms should have a heavy bias in favor of leaving political leaders' speech up. Not because platforms owe this to political leaders, but because they owe it to the public. /2
Knowing what political leaders are saying is crucial to the public’s ability to hold those leaders accountable for their decisions. /3
Read 7 tweets
21 Dec 20
Laura Poitras says the Assange indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom. She's right. 1/x nytimes.com/2020/12/21/opi…
It doesn’t matter whether Assange himself is a properly described as a journalist. He’s being charged for acts that are integral to national security journalism. 2/x
The Assange indictment was part of the Trump admin’s effort to constrain and demonize the press—an effort that also included describing journalism as fake news, describing journalists as enemies of the people, and embracing foreign tyrants who murder reporters and activists. 3/x
Read 5 tweets
14 Sep 20
I didn’t respond to @paulkrugman's original tweet because I assumed it was just a bad tweet and that he’d figure that out on his own. But now I'm realizing that a lot of the events that defined the past 19 years for people like me didn’t even register with him. THREAD
The problem with the argument he makes here is that it doesn’t recognize that most of the "anti-Muslim sentiment and violence" was *officially sanctioned*. Focusing narrowly on hate crimes stats has the effect of moving all of that out of the picture.
For example, hundreds of Muslim men were rounded up in New York and New Jersey in the weeks after 9/11. They were imprisoned without charge and often subject to abuse in custody because of their religion. None of this would register in any hate crimes database.
Read 10 tweets
18 Jun 20
I don’t think DOJ is going to get its prior restraint against the bookstores, Simon & Schuster, or John Bolton. Still… (1/x)
Events of the past few days really make you wonder whether it might not have been better if the Bush and Obama DOJs hadn’t persuaded courts to defer blindly to the executive branch’s classification decisions. (2/x)
Maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to argue, as the Bush and Obama DOJs did, that government employees never have a First Amendment right to disclose info the executive branch has classified. (3/x)
Read 6 tweets
20 Mar 20
We need to do more to ensure that the public and press are getting timely access to reliable and complete information about the pandemic and about government’s response to it. (1/x)
Yesterday @knightcolumbia filed a FOIA request for policies regulating the speech of CDC employees. (2/x)
knightcolumbia.org/documents/cdc-…
We filed it b/c the WH has issued misleading and inaccurate statements about the pandemic even as it has imposed restrictions on the ability of CDC employees to speak to the press and public. (3/x)
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!