The social network\u2019s \u2018supreme court\u2019 of 40 assorted academics, politicians and journalists to oversee the site\u2019s content is little more than a PR exercise<\/p>\n
The day after the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January, Facebook suspended <\/a>Donald Trump\u2019s account indefinitely. Two things about this decision are interesting. The first is that, as Will Oremus pointed out in a perceptive post<\/a>, the decision was \u201can overnight reversal of the policy on Trump and other political leaders that the social network has spent the past four years honing, justifying and defending. The unprecedented move, which lacks a clear basis in any of Facebook\u2019s previously stated policies, highlights for the millionth time that the dominant platforms are quite literally making up the rules of online speech as they go along.\u201d<\/p>\n In this context, Facebook\u2019s contorted decision-making about Trump throughout his presidency has been beyond parody. \u201cThe only thing that has been consistent, until now,\u201d observes Oremus, \u201cis Facebook\u2019s determination to contort, hair-split and reimagine its rules to make sure nothing Trump posted would fall too far outside them.\u201d In the end, it took the president inciting his followers to sack the Capitol to convince Zuckerberg and co that \u201cthe current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government\u201d.<\/p>\n