Facebook Says Trump's 'Indefinite' Suspension Is Now Two Years Off The Platform, And Then It'll See If He'll Behave

from the i-mean,-it's-something dept

In case you've been living under a rock for all of 2021, following the January 6th mob attack at the Capitol, where then President Donald Trump went to social media and posted things that could be read as egging on his insurrectionist followers, Twitter and Facebook suspended Trump's accounts. A few weeks later, the still relatively new and untested Oversight Board that will review a few Facebook decisions agreed to review the Trump decision. In late April, it upheld the removal, but said that Facebook's decision being for an "indefinite" length violated the company's own policies, and told the company it needed to either put a time limit on it, or come up with an actual rationale for a permanent suspension.

Last week, Facebook announced its response: the suspension would now be officially for two years -- but that doesn't mean Trump will automatically get his account back (just in time to ramp up his 2024 campaign...).

We are today announcing new enforcement protocols to be applied in exceptional cases such as this, and we are confirming the time-bound penalty consistent with those protocols which we are applying to Mr. Trump’s accounts. Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year.

At the end of this period, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded. We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.

When the suspension is eventually lifted, there will be a strict set of rapidly escalating sanctions that will be triggered if Mr. Trump commits further violations in future, up to and including permanent removal of his pages and accounts.

As is alluded in that snippet, the company also announced an official policy that applies "heightened penalties for public figures during times of civil unrest and ongoing violence." Just the fact that this needs to be its own category of content moderation policies should tell you something about the complexity of coming up with policies that can be equally applied across all situations. Every situation is different, and no policy is going to take into account all context. Two years is the new maximum suspension under this policy:

In establishing the two year sanction for severe violations, we considered the need for it to be long enough to allow a safe period of time after the acts of incitement, to be significant enough to be a deterrent to Mr. Trump and others from committing such severe violations in future, and to be proportionate to the gravity of the violation itself.

Of course, the Oversight Board tasked Facebook with much more than just putting a timeline on Trump's suspension and Facebook buried all the details beneath the headline grabbing "two years!" announcement.

Most of those policies focus on how the company deals with high profile and influential users who are violating its policies, and how it handles whether or not certain user speech is "newsworthy" or not. In particular, politicians will no longer receive an automatic assumption that all their speech is newsworthy. Instead, that speech will be judged in the same way as anyone else's speech for newsworthiness -- or so Facebook claims. In all reality, the actual lesson in all of this is that it's not possible to judge things equally. There is always additional context that makes each situation somewhat unique.

So, honestly, the only real end result here is that politicians won't receive the assumption of newsworthiness and seem more likely to face suspensions under these new policies.

For another view on the details of how Facebook dealt with this, read Evelyn Douek's analysis, in which she suggests that Facebook is basically doing the least possible that it can, which is allowed under the somewhat weak charter it put on the Oversight Board. Many people have highlighted how weak that charter is, but this may have been the first time it's been put to the test, and shows that when Facebook really doesn't want to commit to serious change, it has ways to avoid it. I'm less convinced that's the true outcome here, and honestly given how the Oversight Board has acted so far, I suspect that this weakish response from Facebook is only likely to embolden the Oversight Board to continue to hammer the company over its failures, even if Facebook wants to avoid committing to real change in response.

Filed Under: content moderation, donald trump, newsworthy, world leaders
Companies: facebook, oversight board

Five Reactions To Dianne Feinstein Finally Finding Something About The NSA To Get Angry About

from the friends-in-high-places dept

Dianne Feinstein, the NSA's biggest defender in the Senate (which is ridiculous since she's also in charge of "oversight") has finally had enough. It's not because she finally understands how crazy it is that the NSA is spying on every American, including all of her constituents in California. It's not because she finally realized that the NSA specifically avoided letting her know about their widespread abuses. No, it's because she just found out that the NSA also spies on important people, like political leaders around the globe. It seems that has finally ticked off Feinstein, who has released a scathing statement about the latest revelations:

“Unlike NSA’s collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed. Therefore our oversight needs to be strengthened and increased.

“With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of U.S. allies—including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany—let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed.

“Unless the United States is engaged in hostilities against a country or there is an emergency need for this type of surveillance, I do not believe the United States should be collecting phone calls or emails of friendly presidents and prime ministers. The president should be required to approve any collection of this sort.

There are so many different possible reactions to this. Let's go to list form to go through a few:

1. Most people seem a hell of a lot less concerned about spying on political leaders than the public. After all, you kind of expect espionage to target foreign leaders. It seems incredibly elitist for Feinstein to show concern about spying on political leaders, and not the public. It shows how she views the public as opposed to people on her level of political power. One of them doesn't matter. The other gets privacy.
2. For all the bluster and anger from Feinstein about this, the Senate Intelligence Committee's mandate is only about intelligence activities that touch on US persons, so it's not even clear that she has any power over their activities strictly in foreign countries targeting foreign individuals. Why she seems to have expected the NSA to let her know about that when the NSA itself has been pretty explicit that avoids telling Congress about anything it can reasonably avoid telling them.
3. Feinstein has referred to Ed Snowden's leak as "an act of treason." Now that they've revealed something that she believes is improper and deserving of much greater scrutiny, is she willing to revisit that statement?
4. Given that Feinstein has been angrily banging the drum for months about how her oversight of the intelligence community shows that everything's great, and there's no risk of rogue activity -- yet now she's finally admitting that perhaps the oversight isn't particularly comprehensive, is she willing to admit that her earlier statements are reasonably considered hogwash and discredited? She even says in her statement: "Congress needs to know exactly what our intelligence community is doing. To that end, the committee will initiate a major review into all intelligence collection programs." And yet she's been claiming that oversight has been more than enough for years?
5. The cynical viewpoint: Feinstein knows the USA Freedom Act is coming out Tuesday, and that it has tremendous political momentum. Sooner or later she was going to have to admit that NSA surveillance was going to be curbed. Did she just happen to choose this latest bit of news for a bit of political theater to join the "time to fix the NSA" crowd?

There are plenty of other things that could be added to the list, but the whole situation seems fairly ridiculous considering about whom we're talking.

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, elites, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, senate intelligence committee, world leaders

NSA Urged US Officials To 'Share Their Rolodexes' So NSA Knew Phone Numbers Of World Leaders To Track

from the well-of-course dept

The latest Snowden leak story published by the Guardian focuses on the claim that the NSA supposedly monitored the calls of 35 world leaders, but really that seems like a secondary point. The "35 world leaders" claim is based on a memo noting that a single US official shared his rolodex with the NSA, and that helped them track those world leaders, some of whom it was already tracking. But the key point here is that this was just one official, and it's clear that the NSA was seeking similar access from other officials. You can read the details here: The key lines:

In one recent case, a US official provided NSA with 200 phone numbers to 35 world leaders. S2 Operations Staff immediately supplied this information to the S2 Production Centers (PCs). Despite the fact that the majority is probably available via open source, the PCs have noted 43 previously unknown phone numbers. These numbers plus several others have been tasked to OCTAVE.

OCTAVE is an NSA tool for metadata, so it would appear that they were collecting the (still important) metadata on those calls, but not necessarily recording them or listening to them (caveat: "... under this program...").

But, the memo also notes that the NSA is encouraging other US officials to basically share their rolodexes at every opportunity. Perhaps that's not a surprise -- US officials are likely to do that sort of thing, but it certainly will make foreign leaders a lot more careful about exactly which phone lines they share with US colleagues.

This success leads S2 to wonder if there are NSA liaisons whose supported customers may be willing to share their rolodexes or phone lists with NSA as potential sources of intelligence. S2 welcomes such information!

I'll bet they do! Also: "supported customers"?

Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, rolodexes, world leaders