Meta has lifted the final restrictions on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the run up to US presidential elections in November.

The ex-US president and convicted felon’s accounts were suspended in 2021 after he praised supporters who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January.

Trump’s accounts, which combined have over 60 million followers, were re-instated in 2023 but subject to additional monitoring, which has now been removed, the social media giant said in a blog post.

Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-40 points

Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.

I hate to say it, but they’re right. They can’t silence one of the two candidates for the presidency.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

Imagine piping up to defend the non-existent “right” of a self declared fascist to spew his lies. 🤯

Careful not to choke on that boot…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

The fact you think I support Trump or Facebook tells me all I need to know about the quality of the discourse in this thread. No wonder the left can’t get anything done in your shithole of a country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Whether you like it or not, Canada is heavily dependent on said shithole of a country. You’re similarly as fucked as the rest of us if Trump wins and decides to stop protecting Canada or importing their natural resources in favor of domestic production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

I would say that staging a coup definitively breaks the TOS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points
*

Yes they can. They are a private corporate and can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t target a protected class, and it doesn’t.

And in particular, they didn’t silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

And in particular, they didn’t silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.

Has he been convicted of that? We can all wring our hands as much as we want, and god knows I’m not a Trump supporter, but Facebook are not going to embroil themselves into a legal battle over this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

He’s been convicted in the court of public opinion. Facebook doesn’t need to wait for a court to bar him from their platform.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

They’ve convicted a hell of a lot of other people for it so far.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Facebook does not have nearly as high a burden of proof as a court of law.

Facebook most likely has a far larger budget for their legal team, too. I don’t think they’d be worried about a lawsuit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points

The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other. There are very strong arguments that insisting on “no political discussion” is an inherently conservative stance, but by allowing one candidate to speak but the other to not they are implicitly supporting the former.

And the US Government has made it clear that they don’t consider a violent insurrection to be treason. So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other

Yes. They have once again sided against their own rules and the law in favor of unlimited disinformation and calls for violence.

NOT because they’re taking a stand against unfair censorship. The real reason is that his stochastic terrorism breeds TONS of engagement and thus advertising income and marketable data.

but by allowing one candidate to speak but the other to not they are implicitly supporting the former.

That would have been true if either both or neither had exhibited a pattern of blatant contempt for the rules of the platform. Since only one did that, it’s preferential treatment to NOT kick him off permanently.

And the US Government has made it clear that they don’t consider a violent insurrection to be treason

Prosecutors sacrifying full justice and accuracy in exchange for an easier path to conviction isn’t the US government making anything clear.

So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?

Because aiding and abetting a fascist uprising by voiding the rules that everyone else has to abide by isn’t an admirable or even acceptable thing to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other.

And the US Government has made it clear that they don’t consider a violent insurrection to be treason.

No they didn’t. They prosecuted a LOT of people for that.

So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?

That’s the reason. Fuck Facebook’s own rules, they are trying to mitigate an attack by a fascist dictator.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 520K

    Comments