Thread by @jeffjarvis

The decision in a nutshell, throwing the ball back over the net to Facebook. I disagree with the board that Facebook's decision was not proportionate. In fact, Facebook's decision was long overdue and appropriate.
oversightboard.com/decision/FB-69…

The Oversight Board "insisting" that Facebook review its own decision is kinda cute: the Board telling Facebook to do what the Board itself didn't have the guts to do.

The board says: " It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored." No. There are cardinal sins that merit hell, forever.

In so many of its decisions, the Oversight Board keeps a short-term perspective, looking for imminent harm. They missed the opportunity to look at Trump's greater harms than on Jan. 6 -- and his behavior since, maintaining the Big Lie.

The Oversight Board decisions reads like the compromise of a committee. @Twitter under @jack has been far more decisive. Jack recognizes his responsibility. Facebook and the Oversight Board *each* refuse to meet their responsibility. Disappointing.

The decision is disappointing, too, in its lack of scope. It offers such pap as, "Elections are a crucial part of democracy," yet does not address Trump & Co. and their promulgation of the Big Lie about our election and that both imminent and long-term harm.

The decision is disappointing, too, in its lack of scope. It offers such pap as, "Elections are a crucial part of democracy," yet does not address Trump & Co. and their promulgation of the Big Lie about our election and that both imminent and long-term harm.

The Board tells Facebook to come up with a proportionate response to trying to destroy democracy. But the Board doesn't have the guts to say what the hell that would be.

Listening to a press call with the Oversight Board. "We are not cops ranging over social media and solving the world's ills." Their sole job is to oversee Facebook the company, they say.

"Make a decision the next six months that is consistent with your own rules," Board member Helle Thorning-Schmidt says. FB made a decision. It told the Board to judge that decision. The Board toward FB to make another decision.

Oh, this is rich. Thorning-Schmidt accuses Facebook of "shirking its responsibilities." That is *precisely* what the Oversight Board just did by shoving this back to Facebook.

The Oversight Board essentially said: You should have taken Trump down. But you shouldn't have taken him down permanently and you should decide what to do about that. In short: The Board actually does nudge Trump back online but didn't have the guts to say so.

To be clear: Facebook was right to take Trump down and he should stay down permanently. His every uttering present imminent danger to democracy. The Board could have endorsed that responsible decision. It did not. It fumfered.

Board Co-Chair says FB could decide for a permanent suspension, or a time-limited suspension, or that he's "no longer a harm" and is reinstated. In short: what they faced in January and before already.

.@Yamiche, bless her, tells the Board that it just pushed the decision back to Facebook. Thorning-Schmidt says an "indefinite" suspension is "not acceptable" because it's not in Facebook's rules.

Facebook's could not have anticipated a head of state trying to destroy democracy and support an insurrection. Of course, Facebook had to react and create rules as it goes.

.@ruskin147 asks whether Facebook feels helped by this decision or whether the Oversight Board let the company down. Great question.

"Do you believe that Facebook acts in any way in a partisan manner," Newsmax asks. "That's a very good question," McConnell, the co-chair replies. No, it's not.

From the questions of *real* reporters in the Oversight Board call, it's starting to look like coverage will mock the Board for its feint.

The Board says all users must be treated the same. WaPo says this seems to kill FB's "newsworthiness exception." Board says it doesn't. Very confusing. BTW, I disagree that powerful people should be treated the same. They should be held to *higher* standards.

The press call with the Board lasted just 45 minutes. Big brands got questions in.

The board demands FB follow pre-existing rules. But who could have anticipated a president doing what Trump did? The Board concentrates on imminent harm: violence. But what of the Big Lie's larger harm to democracy?

Further, the Board says Facebook shouldn't make up rules as it goes. That's ridiculous as FB has to react to new threats and it gets in deserved hot water when it does not. It must react quickly and with responsibility.

The Board is telling Facebook to judge in six months whether Trump is still harmful. That itself is new: The Board is telling FB to judge behavior off its platform (since he's not there, how else could it make that judgment?).

I'll be eager for @Klonick's analysis. What fascinates me now is the structural issues with the Board: the dynamics of committee decisions.

In the end, the Board is quibbling with the definition of "indefinite," says it's not definite enough. I already read "indefinite" as "permanent" -- with no ending. Thus the Board put a potential ending on the period while being indefinite itself. I have a headache.

Based on headlines (NYT, WaPo, Guardian) one might think a PR person advised the Board to get safest coverage (the "yes" without the "but"). Last hed from the LATimes did better, I'd say.

The more I think about the decision, the more disappointed I am that both FB & the Board concentrated on specific posts & events around Jan. 6. This was not about the harm of a few posts. In taking down a user, it needed to be about the user & should have judged that totality.

Thus FB and the Board should have judged Trump's claims of the Big Lie and its harm not only as an instrument of incitement but also as an effort to pull foundation blocks from Democracy.

Now Facebook will have to decide Trump's fate on those larger questions of his harm not on Jan. 6 but in the future and to democracy.