Facebook Announces Trump Ban Will Last Two Years

 

SAN ANGELO, TX – After months of controversy, Facebook announced on Friday former President Donald Trump will remain suspended from the social media platform for two years.

"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," said Facebook in a statement. "We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year."

According to the social media giant, at the end of the two years, Facebook will re-evaluate to see if the "risk to public safety has receded."

The platform will evaluate instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly, and other markers of civil unrest.

If additional violations are found, Trump may be permanently removed from Facebook.

"We are grateful that the Oversight Board acknowledged that our original decision to suspend Mr. Trump was right and necessary, in the exceptional circumstances at the time. But we absolutely accept that we did not have enforcement protocols in place adequate to respond to such unusual events. Now that we have them, we hope and expect they will only be applicable in the rarest circumstances," said Facebook. 

"We know that any penalty we apply — or choose not to apply — will be controversial. There are many people who believe it was not appropriate for a private company like Facebook to suspend an outgoing President from its platform, and many others who believe Mr. Trump should have immediately been banned for life. We know today’s decision will be criticized by many people on opposing sides of the political divide — but our job is to make a decision in as proportionate, fair, and transparent a way as possible, in keeping with the instruction given to us by the Oversight Board."

Donald Trump fired back at Facebook with the following message: "Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. It will be all business!"

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

It's pretty bad when Facebook takes the January 6th insurrection more seriously than republican lawmakers do. Then again they are just avoiding the truth and the fact that they are all complicit in helping the other republicans (poor) attempt to take over the government and install a dictator on the 6th of January.

Oh please! It was a political demonstration NOT an attempt to overthrow the government.

Easily avoidable if Capital Police Chief Sund’s call for help didn’t go unanswered for 4 and one half hours ;)

So now it wasn't "just" a "demonstration"? NOW it is a situation that requires the capitol police to call for help? Which is it? A "demonstration" or a violent situation that would require an entire police force to call in for backup?

I honestly don't see your point with this statement, which is probably true by the way, I'm not challenging it's validity.

Who controls the national guard for DC I wonder?

Requests for national guard assistance were also made days prior to the event. Sund was told by then House Sergeant of Arms Paul Irving there were “concerns about the optics”.

Sounds like they knew it was going to get violent and that it wasn't going to be just some "demonstration."

They knew it was a possibility. Like I said it could have all been avoided.

Yeah by republicans not trying to take over the government and stop a legal election to install a dictator who had not been elected. 

I someone broke into your house and people followed in after them, would you say that just the first person that broke in was guilty, or that all of them were guilty?

Reminds me of that scene from Animal House!

Zuckerberg: We believe (Trumps) actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols.

Facebook lackey: But sir, Trump is already on probation.

Zuckerberg: He is? Well then, we’re putting him on “double secret probation” 

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Facebook is involved in censorship. After all they censored claims that covid 19 came from a lab in Wuhan, China for a YEAR.

What is Anthony Fauci (the federal government’s highest paid employee) doing advising Facebook on content moderation anyway? Is that not something that you demo libs are concerned about?

 

You would have to show me where this was true first before I comment on it, an article or something other that you just saying so.

BUT, along the kind-of same lines of censorship goes to the fact that private companies can do what they want with their business. Like the fact they can require those masks you republicans gripe about (but never said anything about their same no shirt no shoes policies.) It also reminds me of the time that republicans were in an uproar about a bakery saying no to making a cake for a gay couple, you guys said it was just a business exercising it's rights, just like facebook is doing now. It's republicans that stepped on their own feet with this one.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/baker-who-refused-make-cake-gay-wedding-i-don-t-n880061

What was the “even better deal” offered to Fauci by Zuckerberg which was redacted from Fauci’s email obtained by Buzzfeed through the freedom of information act?

I have no idea, I have not heard of any of this. Good to know that you trust buzzfeed though and I can use them in the future. What does this have to do with trump being banned? 

Right! Apparently demo libs are fine with censorship as long as it supports their narrative ;)

You are going to need to start replying directly to comments that you are commenting about, it's hard to follow if you don't.

Nobody said they were for censorship. Are you for or against private businesses rights? Do you believe that a business has a right to refuse to do business with someone that they feel would harm their business?

The controlling of content by Facebook makes them an “editor”, and no longer deserving of “protection” granted them under Section 230.

Do you believe that a business has a right to refuse to do business with someone that they feel would harm their business?

There’s a difference. The bakery was refusing to bake cakes they felt were “offensive”. It’s the same reason doctors can’t be forced to perform abortions against their stated beliefs.

But Facebook, Google etc. are not just ANY companies, they’re monopolies that have become the (self appointed) arbiters of “truth”.

The suppression of “objectionable” information, especially when it comes to political content is censorship! It’s nothing new…it’s what the Chinese Communist Party uses as a means of control, and what propagandists like Joseph Goebbels used to indoctrinate the German people.it’s just that, up until a couple of years ago, Big Tech was hesitant to filter political content what changed?

These people (Gates, Zuckerberg, Dorsey) are globalist megalomaniacs who consider themselves the “saviors” of the world. And if there’s any question as to which side of the political spectrum they belong, one has to only look at their political contributions in the 2020 election ;)

There's a difference. The Chinese communist party and Joseph Goebbels are/were part of a government, Facebook, twitter and others are private companies separate from the government.

Now stop side stepping the question,

Do you believe that a business has a right to refuse to do business with someone that they feel would harm their business? YES or NO.

Can you explain to me what this has to do with the topic at hand? I would love to hear you explanation.

What are you talking about? The example you gave was the bakery that refused to bake penis cakes because it was “offensive” according to their beliefs.

"along the kind-of same lines of censorship goes to the fact that private companies can do what they want with their business."

This is what I said before I gave that example, you are just refusing to answer the question at this point.

“Separate from the government”

That didn’t stop Anthony Fauci (the federal government’s highest paid official) from taking up Zuckerberg’s offer to spread his (mis) information on covid did it? 

I don't know did it? Show me some evidence of that and I will take a look. And once again you are sidestepping the conversation to something else.

I already answered your question you’re just too ignorant to realize it ;)

Facebook/Google/Twitter are not “private” companies as far as the context being discussed. Section 230 creates a “liability shield” for the platforms to restrict access to the availability of material/ information that they consider to be objectionable.

A TRULY private company has no such protection guaranteed by the U.S. government hope that helps ;)

Is this what you are talking about:

(2)Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

I don't see anything in the law about a "provider" being "private", but,

How are they not private? They are certainly private in the sense that they are not owned by any government. I feel like this is lawyer territory and neither of us are lawyers. Either way it isn't "censorship" this is preventing misinformation and preventing potential harm from that misinformation. I guarantee you if any democrat were to be blocked on any of these platforms you wouldn't say a word about it, nor would salive even "report" on it.

So new question:

 Do you believe that a business has a right to refuse to do business with someone that they feel is misinforming the public and could cause harm? YES or NO.

That’s what makes Fauci’s emails so significant. You have no problem with a collaboration between the highest paid official in the federal government and a (supposed) private company with the means and the ability to restrict access to the availability of information?

If this were happening under a Republican administration then I GUARANTEE you would have a problem with it! 

"You have no problem with a collaboration between the highest paid official in the federal government and a (supposed) private company with the means and the ability to restrict access to the availability of information?"

Please stop putting words in my mouth, I have never said any of this. I have asked for proof of this and you have not provided any.

But once again you sidestep the question.

Harmful how? You mean like how Fauci claimed the virus came from a wet market not a lab? So much time has passed I’m sure all the evidence is gone. Heck, the Chinese are probably already doing “gain of function” research on the next virus they’re planning on unleashing on the earth ;)

What “misinformation”? You mean how Fauci claimed it wasn’t necessary to wear a mask, then it was necessary, then it was we should wear two or three?

Probably not at all. Can you show me where anyone was harmed by wearing a mask?

Once again, republican tactics, sidestep the topic and question at hand, it's actually really telling that you can't ever provide sources for your "arguments" and you constantly change the subject into an attempted "gotcha" comment whenever you don't want to actually admit that you can't prove your position or that you agree with me on something.

Who turned out to be right as far as the source of the virus?

Hint: NOT Anthony Fauci

Okie dokie, until you start showing proof of what you are saying I am not going to give any more leeway and just ignore you from now on, it's getting old.

“Can you show me where anyone was harmed by wearing a mask?”

The long term effects on children are unknown, although millions upon millions of them were denied in-person learning based on draconian measures put in place by the CDC.

Post a comment to this article here:

X Close