Facebook's Oversight Board upholds ban on Trump

[TLK Valentine]

You're right. It's ironic to hear some people complain about Facebook permanently banning a member when CF does the same thing whenever a contentious member repeatedly violates a site rule.

To think, we could've sued every time we got hit with the Wrath of Mod...

...so many last opportunities...

 

[Strathos]

I should try suing every time I get banned from an internet forum. It might work if I was rich enough.

 

[Ringo84]

It's not as great a decision as it seems on the surface, as they had to add the mealy-mouthed "we will revisit this after x months" line to appease the unreasonable.

If I was banned from this site, it would suck and I'd probably be upset about it. But I would accept (or learn to accept) it because CF has terms of service (TOS) that should apply to everyone who agrees to be a part of this site. If a supposedly grown man can't accept Facebook's TOS, he shouldn't be allowed to stay on there; it's really simple.
Ringo

 

[ss51]

social media has become a main source of information for many, much like the press that in our nation is expected to be a "free press" and source of information, this is clearly being trod upon.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's not as great a decision as it seems on the surface, as they had to add the mealy-mouthed "we will revisit this after x months" line to appease the unreasonable.

If I was banned from this site, it would suck and I'd probably be upset about it. But I would accept (or learn to accept) it because CF has terms of service (TOS) that should apply to everyone who agrees to be a part of this site. If a supposedly grown man can't accept Facebook's TOS, he shouldn't be allowed to stay on there; it's really simple.
Ringo

From what I understand, Facebook's TOS doesn't allow for an "indefinite" ban -- but it does allow for permanent bans. So the review board basically said, "Either make it permanent, or set a date when he can come back. You've got six months to decide."

 

[TLK Valentine]

social media has become a main source of information for many, much like the press that in our nation is expected to be a "free press" and source of information, this is clearly being trod upon.

If many people are using social media as a source of information, then many people are idiots. Whose fault is that?

If barring a person from social media for violating their TOS is trodding upon "free press," then what would you call it if a social media site chose to shut down completely?

 

[DaisyDay]

social media has become a main source of information for many, much like the press that in our nation is expected to be a "free press" and source of information, this is clearly being trod upon.

The concept of “free press” is that the government should not interfere. It is not that private publishers have to publish editorials from every fool with an opinion.

 

[Belk]

social media has become a main source of information for many, much like the press that in our nation is expected to be a "free press" and source of information, this is clearly being trod upon.

That does not magically transform social media access into a right.