Donald Trump Responds To Facebook’s Decision To Keep Him Banned

Written by Carmine Sabia

OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion


Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, has responded to Facebook’s decision to keep him banned from the platform, at minimum for the next six months.

“What Facebook, Twitter, and Google have done is a total disgrace and an embarrassment to our Country. Free Speech has been taken away from the President of the United States because the Radical Left Lunatics are afraid of the truth, but the truth will come out anyway, bigger and stronger than ever before. The People of our Country will not stand for it! These corrupt social media companies must pay a political price, and must never again be allowed to destroy and decimate our Electoral Process,” he said.

Since the decision came on Wednesday several conservatives on Twitter and other websites have called for Congress to get involved.

Facebook made its decision on Wednesday when the site’s Oversight Board ruled that Trump would continue to be banned.

“The Board has upheld Facebook’s decision on January 7 to suspend then-President Trump from Facebook and Instagram. Trump’s posts during the Capitol riot severely violated Facebook’s rules and encouraged and legitimized violence,” the board said in announcing its decision.

“The Board also found Facebook violated its own rules by imposing a suspension that was ‘indefinite.’ This penalty is not described in Facebook’s content policies. It has no clear criteria and gives Facebook total discretion on when to impose or lift it,” it said.

“Within 6 months of today, Facebook must review this matter and decide a new penalty that reflects its rules, the severity of the violation, and prospect of future harm. Facebook can either impose a time-limited suspension or account deletion,” the board said.

“Facebook cannot make up the rules as it goes, and anyone concerned about its power should be concerned about allowing this. Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook is essential for ensuring the company treats users fairly. This is what the Board stands for.


“We call on Facebook to ensure that if a head of state or high government official repeatedly posts messages that pose a risk of harm under international human rights norms, the company should either suspend the account for a set period or delete it.

“If Facebook opts for a suspension for a set period of time for influential users, the company should assess the risk of the user inciting significant harm before the suspension ends. If the risk remains, Facebook should impose another suspension<” it said.

“The ‘newsworthiness’ of a public figure’s remarks should never take priority over urgent action to prevent harm. Facebook must be far more transparent about how its newsworthiness policy works.

“Restrictions on speech are often imposed by powerful state actors against dissidents and political oppositions. Facebook must resist pressure from governments to silence political opposition, and stand up for free expression.

“Finally, we urged Facebook to conduct a review into its contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and political tensions that led to the events of January 6. This should look at Facebook’s design and policy choices that may allow its platform to be abused,” it said.

Even before the Facebook decision came down there were those warning that the Facebook Oversight Board was a creation of Facebook and not a court, and that it, and the company, wielded too much power.

“The Facebook Oversight Board is not A Court. its a corporate advisory board, like academics paid by Exxon to make a few decisions. The problem with Facebook is its grotesque outsized power, and the business model. Tomorrow, don’t fall for the bait. Call to break it up,” Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout said.

“The bait: debate whether the decision of this corporate advisory committee is right or not. Category error,” she said.

“The correct question: why do we allow behavioral advertising business model for essential communications infrastructure? Why do we let Facebook monopolize social media?

“The correct response to WHATEVER FOB does is: Congress should pass new laws to limit big techs power and biz model,” she said.

And NBC News reporter Ben Collins had similar concerns.

“Before Facebook’s Oversight Board determines whether Donald Trump can post on its platform tomorrow at 9 a.m., I just want to remind everyone that their decision is not the law. Facebook asked people to do some content moderation, and those people said yes. That’s it,” Collins said.

“You can dress this up in whatever veneer of credibility you want, but the Facebook Oversight Board is a collection of people who got asked to make rules for one website and were paid for it. Their decisions have as much industry-wide impact and credibility as the public lends it,” he said.

“We can also debate the merits of who the people on Facebook’s Oversight Board are. The most prominent American disinformation researchers are not on it. Facebook disputes this, but it’s true. Even if they were, they’re not a court. They’re a private company’s paid-for panel,” he said.