I’m frankly unsure whether this whole pseudo-judicial governance structure is an actual improvement over Facebook just saying “Because we feel like it.”
Whatever rubric of rules and procedures they try to set up, moderation decisions as applied to world leaders with millions of followers are always in practice going to be sui generis, high-level judgment calls, which is probably as it should be.
And while I think it’s good and healthy to articulate a public rationale for the decision, there’s also value in reaffirming that “because we feel like it” is in fact all the rationale they ultimately need.
I could be mistaken, but it seems obvious to me that posts expressing basically the same sentiments as Trump’s offending posts would not have been treated as violations coming from a normal Facebook user. They were dangerous *because they came from Trump*.
And here’s the thing: That’s absolutely correct! Pretending his content is or ought to be treated just like any old post by your uncle Gary is silly. And trying to talk as if that’s the case is just going to invite a flood of counterexamples.
I get why it’s to Facebook’s benefit to appear to have these decisions made in a transparent and rules based way, with some form of semi-independent check (even if a non-binding one). But the benefit accrues to the extent people *buy it*. Which doesn’t seem to be the case.
Maybe the most valuable thing about the Oversight Board ruling is that they’re clearly saying: “You can’t punt this to us. Establish a penalty and own it.”
And hopefully part of owning it means saying: “Here are our principles, but they’re not mechanical rules, and we reserve the right to treat Donald Trump differently from your uncle Gary, because he ain’t your uncle Gary and we all know it.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
