Thread by @markscott82

In a couple of hours (9am EST), we'll know if Donald Trump is allowed back on @Facebook. It represents a watershed moment of online content rules -- and shines a spotlight on how FB has de facto power over much of our lives.

A thread on what to expect and this ruling means:

So let's do the basics: Trump's account was suspended after Jan 6 riots and FB referred that decision to @OversightBoard in late Jan to determine if that was correct decision or not oversightboard.com/news/175638774…

As w/ everything that FB does, it divided opinion. The US right called it censorship, the US left called it about time. The rest of the world said what about us amid similar posts from other global leaders

At stake is whether Trump's words around Jan 6 riots represented incitement to violence and therefore broke FB's own community standards. The decision will only apply to Trump's account & any recommendations from Board on how FB should act w/ others is only advisory

Now, the @OversightBoard. It's come in for a lot of criticism for being toothless, in FB's pocket (its budgets comes from company); and has limited power to effect meaningful change.

I mean, that's kinda true. But as multiple board members told me, it's a start and at least represents an effort by FB to allow an independent body to make decisions over what should, and should not, be allowed on the platform.

Status of similar efforts at @google/@twitter:

Problem is, this board is trying to do too little & too much. It's overturned a bunch of FB's decisions in earlier cases, but those decisions have been incredibly specific/granular, and have taken a whack at the bigger content decision problems that are all over the platform

Yet, as the board's administrator, Thomas Hughes, told me, they are also trying to build up a body of quasi-judicial decisions to create de facto free speech standards. Editor's note: that will not go well politico.eu/article/facebo…

Expect the usual calls of "this isn't good enough" and "we need politicians to make these decisions" no matter what today's announcement on Trump is. That's fine. But any legislative change to online content rules, imo, will not have dealt with the Trump question...

... even if some of the world's most powerful digital regulators believe Facebook was right to ban Trump politico.eu/article/margre…

Another issue: Trump has become a sideshow to the wider rise of online extremism. Sure, there's the MAGA crowd. But I track this stuff pretty closely, and the most hardcore extremists have moved on via other platforms like Telegram. That's not going to stop w/ or w/o Trump on FB

If anything, he's become a puppet for that wider movement (note: not all MAGA supporters are extremists, obvs). Themes of ppl thinking their country has been taken away from them, anti-COVID tropes and other more violent behavior is all over social media platforms - & not just FB

Will that change with today's decision? No. I don't buy the "Trump building his own social network" thing, mostly because you need buckets of cash and the ability to outfox the Big Tech companies. Honestly, good luck with that

And yet this decision affects everyone -- and not just Trump. In essence, a private group (via Facebook) has the power to determine how a former elected official can communicate with voters. That's a pretty big step outside of normal democratic processes, imo

FB and others would say that they want regulation, and that they don't want to have to make these decisions. That's somewhat disingenuous, though, as none of the companies have offered up meaningful ways for outside groups to track how this stuff spreads online

That, for me, would be a basic requirement -- to actually know what's going on within these platforms -- before we start regulating

And in case it wasn't abundantly clear: no change to Section 230, or Europe's Digital Services Act, or Germany's NetzDG or the UK's Online Safety Bill or the slew of other content moderation proposals would have dealt with the Trump issue. It just wouldn't.

So beware of the "we need to regulate" crowd that will pop up after the announcement. It's not as easy as they would like you to believe.

How do I think today's decision will go? Famous last words, but I think they vote in favor of banning Trump -- mostly b/c @OversightBoard has taken a legalistic approach to its former decisions and, based on FB's community standards, Trump broke them after Jan. 6

The key question, though, is whether political leaders get to be treated differently online than the average user. International human rights law kinda does that, although it's never been applied to online content rules. That's why today's decision is so new.

Anyhoo, that's my two cents. I don't envy the @OversightBoard and its decision. I also think it shows how the current online content system is broken, as well as why Trump being allowed (or not) back on FB is a sideshow to the bigger trend of online hate/extremism

Yes, I know that kinda undermines my previous point about why this decision is a big deal. But reminder: Trump is part of a bigger issue. And that issue is not going to go away after today.

Rant over. Thoughts appreciated.

PS: Not surprisingly, Americans are split down party lines on whether Trump should be allowed back on social media HT: @FactTank