Mediaboss Marketing

Photographer: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Photographer: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Sometime in the coming weeks, Facebook Inc.s new Oversight Board will announce whether Donald Trump will be allowed to post again on Facebook and Instagram. Based on its recent rulings in other cases, the board seems poised to end Facebooks suspension of Trump, which began in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Trumps return to social media would bolster his attempt to remain the dominant figure in the Republican Party. More broadly, it could reshape the way political speech is governed for Facebooks 2.8 billion users, making it more difficult for the company to remove harmful content and bad actors. A pro-Trump decision could also influence other platforms, including Twitter, which permanently banned the former president after the ransacking of the Capitol, and YouTube, which said on March 4 that it would end its suspension of Trump when the risk of political violence recedes.

Facebook Inc. had ample reason to separate Trump from his 35 million followers on its namesake website, plus 24 million on Instagram. Over a period of months, he used a range of social media platforms to undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Then, having drawn thousands of followers to Washington, D.C,. in January for what he promised would be a wild protest, he directed the crowd to march on the Capitol, where Congress was formally counting electoral votes. Five people died in the ensuing attack, and 140 police officers were injured. Explaining its decision to suspend Trump indefinitely, Facebook said it sought to prevent use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.

A view of Trumps Facebook page on Jan. 7.

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

But then the company referred the Trump suspension to its Oversight Board, a quasi-judicial body that it set up last year to review content moderation decisions and issue rulings the company promises to follow. The board is made up of 20 globally diverse academics, lawyers, and civic leaders, as well as a former prime minister of Denmark and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. While the board hasnt been shy about second-guessing Facebook, overturning the companys decisions in five out of the six cases decided so far, that top-line number can be misleading. The board has jurisdiction only over Facebooks decisions to remove content, meaning its usually decided to restore it. At least for now, the board isnt allowed to review instances where Facebook has allowed potentially harmful materialsuch as incitement, hate speech, or disinformationto remain on its platform.

Some observers have argued that Facebook designed the Oversight Board as a clever sham that would allow it to keep controversial content on the platform. Such content drives user engagement, which, in turn, maximizes ad revenue. That seems overstated. The relatively tiny number of cases the board is likely to decide probably wont have a meaningful effect on the overall supply of engagement bait. Moreover, while Facebook has vowed to obey board rulings in particular cases, the company is not obliged to apply the principles the board enunciates to millions of similar cases. Rather than a sham, the oversight body appears to reflect an impulse to outsource responsibility for content moderationto have someone else make tough calls, at least in a handful of especially sensitive cases, like, say, the deplatforming of a former president.

Facebook management tends to outsource decisions about which posts stay up. The company sends the vast majority of its front-line human content moderation work to third-party vendors who employ relatively inexpensive local labor in places including the Philippines and India.

In an interview with Kate Klonick for a definitive New Yorker piece on the founding of the Oversight Board, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said the body wasnt designed to deflect responsibility. Im not setting this up to take pressure off me or the company in the near term, he said. The reason that Im doing this is that I think, over the long term, if we build up a structure that people can trust, then that can help create legitimacy and create real oversight.

The analytical approach the Oversight Board has taken favors the restoration of Trumps account. As a corporation, Facebook isnt, strictly speaking, constrained by the First Amendment, which limits government restrictions on speech. But in some of its initial rulings, the board has skeptically scrutinized Facebooks own community standards, stressing the ambiguity of the rules under which the company has removed content. Its also tended to frame the factual context of the disputed posts in a narrow way, an approach that can minimize the potential harm the speech in question could cause. If carried over to the Trump decision, these inclinations would help him.

Consider a ruling that reversed Facebooks removal of a 2020 post from Myanmar that included the assertion that there is something wrong with Muslims psychologically. Facebook took down the post under its policy against hate speech. The board acknowledged the severity of anti-Muslim animus in Myanmar but referred to this instance as a mere expression of opinion, which did not advocate hatred or intentionally incite any form of imminent harm. The board could have taken a broader view of the recent history of Myanmar. Doing so would have put more emphasis on the Myanmar militarys ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims, an atrocity partly fueled by dehumanizing rhetoric spread on Facebook. The companys belated vigilance about preventing further lethal abuse of its platform in Myanmar seems warranted.

In another case, the board overturned the removal of a post from France describing the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19, a widespread claim that has been refuted by scientific evidence. Facebook took action under its rule against misinformation that risks imminent physical harm. In light of the coronavirus pandemic, the company has vowed to remove claims of false cures and other medical misinformation. But the Oversight Board was dissatisfied with Facebooks inappropriately vague guidelines, concluding: A patchwork of policies found on different parts of Facebooks website make it difficult for users to understand what content is prohibited. So the misleading post about a phony cure was restored.

Which brings us back to Trump. Describing his pending case on its website, the board narrows its focus to just two posts from Jan. 6. In the first, Trump appeared in a video while the rioters were still ransacking the Capitol. We had an election that was stolen from us, he told the insurrectionists. He said they should go home but added, We love you. Youre very special. In a later written message, posted while police were securing the Capitol, he said, These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously ripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.

This framing of the case suggests the board may not consider adequately the broader context: the pattern of Trumps Facebook and Twitter pronouncements, going back months, in which he tried to erode popular faith in voting and the peaceful transfer or power. Another possible signal that should give Trump some confidence is the boards assertion in its case preview that Facebook wasnt crystal clear about which of its rules he violated. In earlier decisions, the board pointed to this kind of fuzziness to justify reversals of company sanctions.

Removing a political leader from a widely used platform should be a punishment of last resort. It narrows the scope of political debate and may deny voters valuable election-related information. In close cases, Facebook should lean toward penalties like labeling content as misleading or limiting its distribution.

To Facebook, though, Trump wasnt a close case. His social media communication, viewed in total, spread falsehoods about a rigged election and thereby created a real danger to our democracy. He praised and justified insurrectionists, even as they stalked congressional hallways, chanting that they wanted to hang Vice President Mike Pence. Facebook has no obligation to amplify speech that undermines democratic governance and incites violence. But the Oversight Board, as a result of its bureaucratic imperatives and analytical approach, might yet restore Trumps Facebook and Instagram megaphones.Barrett, a former writer for Bloomberg Businessweek, is the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, where he researches disinformation.Read next: Marketers Push Black Lives Matter But Underpay Black Influencers

Here is the original post:
Trump's Facebook Ban Will Likely Be Overturned by New Oversight Board - Bloomberg

Supporters of US President Donald Trump protest in the US Capitol Rotunda on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC.

Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images

A retired New York Police officer seen on surveillance video shaking a tambourine while walking around inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 with a mob of Trump supporters was arrested Tuesday morning.

Sara Carpenter, 51, is the latest in a number of former or current members of law enforcement to be charged in connection with the riot, which began with protests against the election of President Joe Biden.

Carpenter, who voluntarily surrendered Tuesday, told FBI agents in January that she went to the Capitol with others after hearing then-President Donald Trump instruct them to "march to the Capitol," according to a court filing.

The riot left five people dead, including Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Two other police officers who defended the Capitol that day killed themselves on the heels of the riot, which injured nearly 140 other cops.

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Carpenter retired from the New York Police Department in 2004 after about 10 years of service. During the 1990s, she worked as a spokeswoman for the NYPD.

Detective Sophia Mason, a current spokeswoman for the Police Department, said in an email, "The NYPD worked closely with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force culminating with the arrest of Sara Carpenter."

Carpenter was ordered released by a judge on a personal recognizance bond after appearing via videoconference Tuesday in Brooklyn, New York, federal court. She faces misdemeanor charges of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

"Any involvement in the Jan. 6 [riot] is serious conduct," said assistant U.S. Attorney Josh Hafetz at that hearing.

But the prosecutor said that Carpenter's cooperation with the FBI, her voluntary surrender and other factors led prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington to agree that a non-monetary bond would be sufficient "to ensure she will return to court and protect the safety of the community."

Under the conditions of that bond, Carpenter's travel is limited New York City or Long Island, unless it is to visit Washington for court appearances and meetings with a lawyer there for the case. She had turned over her passport when she surrendered to the FBI.

DOJ submits photo of a tambourine as part of a Statement of Facts related to former NYPD officer Sara Carpenter participating in the Capitol Riots on Jan. 6th, 2021.

Carpenter's case, along with hundreds of other criminal cases against alleged Capitol rioters, is being prosecuted in District of Columbia federal court.

The court filing says that the FBI received an anonymous tip on Jan. 7 saying that Carpenter telephoned a relative and said that she was inside the Capitol and had been tear-gassed during the invasion. The tipster gave Carpenter's home address in the borough of Queens in New York City.

Carpenter on Jan. 18 told FBI agents during an interview that she drove to Washington on Jan. 5 and the following morning "went to the rally point where Trump's Twitter page has instructed all supporters to hear about the election fraud," the filing said.

Trump, for months after the November presidential election, repeatedly and falsely claimed that he had won the election and that Biden's victory was the result of widespread ballot fraud in multiple states.

Federal and state courts have consistently rejected those allegations, as did Trump's own attorney general at the time, William Barr.

On Jan. 6, Trump, his family members and various allies held a rally outside the White House, where they again made false statements about the election and urged supporters to help them reverse the election results. Those results were due to be confirmed that day by a joint session of Congress presided over by then-Vice President Mike Pence.

According to the filing, Carpenter told FBI agents, "She heard President Trump's words on the jumbo televisions and speakers instructing people to rally back, not leave, and march to the Capitol."

"Carpenter stated that at approximately 1:00 p.m., she began to walk with a large group of people to the Capitol. Carpenter stated that she entered the Rotunda of the Capitol, where she observed other individuals walking around and leaving with items," the filing said.

"Carpenter told FBI agents that she observed police yelling for individuals to get out, then pushing and shoving the crowd. Carpenter stated she was trampled and pepper sprayed as she exited the Capitol building."

DOJ submits photos as part of a Statement of Facts, identifying Former NYPD officer Sara Carpenter (dressed in red hat, green jacket wearing a grey backpack), participating in the Capitol Riots on Jan. 6th, 2021.

Source: Department of Justice.

The filing also notes that during her interview, Carpenter said she had taken video of the Capitol building's interior with her mobile phone. She sent an FBI agent a text message containing that video footage on Jan. 19, the filing said.

Capitol closed-circuit television video shows Carpenter in a red hat, green coat and black boots, with a backpack, entering the Capitol Rotunda with a crowd, the filing said.

Before she exited the Rotunda, Carpenter is seen on video turning "back to the room and raises [her] hands in the air," the filing said.

DOJ submits photos as part of a Statement of Facts, identifying Former NYPD officer Sara Carpenter (dressed in red hat, green jacket wearing a grey backpack), participating in the Capitol Riots on Jan. 6th, 2021.

Source: Department of Justice.

"In her left hand she holds a tambourine, which she shakes several times before turning back around and exiting the Rotunda," the filing said.

A March 2 search of Carpenter's home found the items of clothing she was wearing at the Capitol that day, as well as the backpack, the filing said.

"Carpenter also voluntarily provided the tambourine she confirmed she carried inside the Capitol," the filing said.

Read more:
Ex-New York cop Sara Carpenter arrested on Capitol riot charges, told FBI she went there on Trump instructions - CNBC

The CEO of social media site Gab has claimed he rejected a proposal in January to have former president Donald Trump on the platform.

Andrew Torba, who founded the service in 2016, said that representatives of the former president's senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner made the pitch: equity in the business in exchange for Trump to sign up and post his opinions to the site.

As first reported by Forbes, Torba said that he had declined the telephone call proposal immediately, saying: 'No, I'm not entertaining that."

And it didn't sound likely the CEO would change his mind in the future. He added: "Gab's not for sale. There's no amount that would get me to sell. Zero."

Sharing the Forbes story on his Gab profile this week, Torba wrote: "As I have said many times, [Trump] is welcome to join Gab anytime and speak freely. But Gab is not for sale and under no circumstances will Gab change our free speech policies, Mr. Kushner."

Gab is broadly pitched as a conservative-friendly alternative to mainstream social sites such as Twitter or Facebook, and its looser moderation policies has left it an attractive option for right-wing personalities, conspiracy theorists and white nationalists.

It's website describes Torba as a "Christian technology entrepreneur" who launched it after seeing a rise in censorship from other platforms during the 2016 election.

There is an account for Donald Trump on the website already, but Torba has previously said the profile is not used by the former president himself.

In February, Torba accused Kushner of "actively trying to keep Trump off Gab" and said the Trump Gab account was just a mirror archive of public statements.

"We've always been transparent about this and would obviously let people know if the President starts using it. The only reason he's not using it right now to contact his base is because dopey advisers like Jared Kushner, who lost him the election, are blocking him from using it," Torba wrote, confirming the Trump profile is run by Gab.

Trump was permanently suspended by Twitter on January 8 "due to the risk of further incitement of violence" in the wake of the Capitol riot two days prior.

His Facebbook profile was locked for 24 hours on January 6. The next day, the blocks on his Facebook and Instagram were extended indefinitely, and remain in place.

Buzzfeed News reported on February 5 that members of Trump's campaign, including former manager Brad Parscale, approached another social media platform, Parler, with a similar offer: asking for a stake in the company in exchange for Trump joining.

That deal never went though and Parscale told Buzzfeed at the time the president "was never part of the discussions," and claimed they were "never that substantive."

While Trump remains banished from social media, speculation has surged over the past few days that he may soon return via his own platform. Senior adviser Jason Miller told Fox News last weekend that Trump could pull in "tens of millions of people."

"I think that we're going to see President Trump returning to social media in probably about two or three months here, with his own platform," Miller claimed to Fox News. "And this is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social media."

A request for comment to Gab's listed press information on Wednesday resulted in a bounce-back email. Trump's representatives have been contacted for comment.

The rest is here:
Donald Trump's Team Sought Stake in Gab But Was Rejected, CEO Andrew Torba Claims - Newsweek

A former lawyer for Donald Trump who made several false claims of voter fraud in regard to the 2020 presidential election is now arguing that no reasonable person would have believed her conspiracy theories.

Lawyers for Sidney Powell make the argument in a court filing in hopes of getting a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit filed against her by Dominion Voting Systems dismissed, CNN reports. Dominion filed the lawsuit in January.

Even [assuming] that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact, the filing says, as reported by Business Insider.

Powell claimed that Dominion voting machines were rigged to switch votes for Trump to Joe Biden, his Democratic challenger, during the election. There is no evidence any vote-switching occurred in what experts have called the most secure election in U.S. history.

According to CNN, Powell was sharing her opinions on the election and that people were free to come to their own conclusions. Powell made several public and TV appearances pushing the false claims. She lost every lawsuit she filed in making the false claims, Buzzfeed reports.

Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as wild accusations and outlandish claims, the filing says. They are repeatedly labeled inherently improbable and even impossible. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

According to Buzzfeed, Powells lawyers want Dominions lawsuit or the case moved to Texas. Theyre also arguing that Powells claims were hyperbole and should be protected by the First Amendment.

But Buzzfeed reports that government filings show many people arrested during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol have cited Powells claims of a rigged voting system as a reason for believing the election was stolen from Trump.

Dominion has separate lawsuits against former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell, the My Pillow CEO. Conservative commentators Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro have been sued by election-technology company Smartmatic.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trumps former lawyer Sidney Powell argues no reasonable person would believe her conspiracy theories - masslive.com

As The Sun reports, the White House news conference was Biden's first official one as president and was limited to 25 reporters. He even had a cheat sheet, noted observers.

During the press conference, the presidentconfirmed he has every intention of running for re-election in 2024, and commented on the United States Covid-19 vaccination roll-out. "No other country in the world has even come close, not even close, to what we are doing," Biden claimed (via BBC). Elsewhere, the President also hadharsh words for his predecessor, criticizing Trump's handling of the expanding humanitarian crisis on the southern border.

Speaking toLaura Ingraham onFox News, Trump hit back at Biden's comments, claiming his own administration'sborder policies were superior because they encouraged fewer people to show up at the U.S.-Mexico border (via The Sun). "By the time we finished what we were doing [on the border], very few people were coming up because they knew they weren't going to get through." He added,"We stopped 'catch and release' which was a disaster."

Read the original post:
Donald Trump's Harsh Reaction To Joe Biden's Press Conference - The List