From the Boston Globe this morning: “The social network’s quasi-independent Oversight Board voted to uphold [Donald Trump’s] ban from the platform after his account was suspended four months ago for inciting violence that led to the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot.”
That tells you all you need to know about the fairness of any such decision involving any organization with “media” in its description. Let’s see:
- What—THE HELL—is a “quasi-independent” board? Is it independent, or isn’t it? Oh, it’s “kind of” independent, is it? Right. It’s not independent then, and no decision by any body that allows itself to be used in corporate deceit like that can be trusted. Gautam Hans, a technology law and free speech expert and professor at Vanderbilt University, commented that “If any other company decided, well, we’re just going to outsource our decision-making to some quasi-independent body, that would be thought of as ridiculous.”
Yes, that’s because it is ridiculous, for Facebook or “any other company.”
- President Trump was banned for “inciting violence” when any objective analysis of his words and what happened shows that he did nothing of the kind.
- The gratuitous use of “deadly” is more of the news media’s attempt to bias public perceptions of the event to Trump’s detriment.
The CYA board—I think that’s a fair description—then said, contradicting itself, “It was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension,” although the board is allowing the penalty to stand. It gave Facebook (of which, remember, it is quasi-independent! Don’t forget that! ) six more months to reexamine the “arbitrary penalty” it imposed on January 7, and then decide on another penalty that reflects the “gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm.”
Then, I presume, the quasi independent board will examine that penalty as to whether it is “clear, necessary and proportionate.” Next, Facebook will presumably have another six months to “re-examine” that.
I’m fascinated by the question of how many Americans out there read this double-talk, and think, “Makes sense to me!”
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Facebook can drag this out at least to the 2022 mid-terms, and if you don’t think that’s the agenda here, I have a perpetual motion machine I can sell you at a bargain price.
It doesn’t take six months to decide whether censoring a sitting President of the United States is a strike at democracy and political discourse. I’m timing myself now—-hmmmmm—yup, it is. Ok, that was .8 seconds.
How stupid and gullible does Facebook think the public is? How stupid and gullible do Facebook’s allies in the mainstream media think the public is, to report this whitewash by a “semi-independent” board as if it wasn’t a self-evident cover-up?
How stupid and gullible is the public?