The cloông chồng is ticking on former President Donald Trump’s ban from Facebook, formerly indefinite and now for a period of two years, the maximum penalty under a newly revealed mix of rules for suspending public figures. But when the time comes, the company will reevaluate the ban và make a decision then whether to end or extover it, rendering it indefinitely definite.

Bạn đang xem: Facebook will reconsider trump's ban in two years

The ban of Trump in January was controversial in different ways khổng lồ different groups, but the issue on which Facebook’s Oversight Board stuông chồng as it chewed over the decision was that there was nothing in the company’s rules that supported an indefinite ban. Either remove sầu hlặng permanently, they said, or else put a definite limit lớn the suspension.

Facebook has chosen… neither, really. The two-year limit on the ban (backdated to January) is largely decorative, since the option to lớn extover it is entirely Facebook’s prerogative, as VPhường. of public affairs Nichồng Clegg writes:

At the end of this period, we will look khổng lồ experts to assess whether the risk to lớn public safety has receded. We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly & 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 và continue to lớn re-evaluate until that risk has receded.

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

It sort of fulfills the recommendation of the Oversight Board, but truthfully Trump’s position is no less precarious than before. A ban that can be rescinded or extended whenever the company chooses is certainly “indefinite.”

Facebook’s hand-picked ‘oversight’ panel upholds Trump ban — for now

In a statement, Trump called the ruling “an insult.”

That said, the Facebook decision here does reach beyond the Trump situation. Essentially the Oversight Board suggested they need a rule that defines how they act in situations lượt thích Trump’s, so they’ve sầu created a standard… of sorts.

Xem thêm: Các Cách Xây Dựng Chiến Lược Nhân Sự Là Gì, Vai Trò Chiến Lược

Image Credits: Facebook

This highly specific “enforcement protocol” is sort of lượt thích a visual representation of Facebook saying “we take this very seriously.” While it gives the impression of some kind of sentencing guidelines by which public figures will systematically be given an appropriate ban length, every aspect of the process is arbitrarily decided by Facebook.

What circumstances justify the use of these “heightened penalties”? What kind of violations qualify for bans? How is the severity decided? Who picks the duration of the ban? When that duration expires, can it simply be extended if “there is still a serious risk to lớn public safety”? What are the “rapidly escalating sanctions” these public figures will face post-suspension? Are there time limits on making decisions? Will they be deliberated publicly?

It’s not that we must assume Facebook will be inconsistent or self-giảm giá or make bad decisions on any of these questions & the many more that come lớn mind, exactly (though that is a real risk), but that this neither adds nor exposes any machinery of the Facebook moderation process during moments of crisis when we most need khổng lồ see it working.

Despite the new official-looking punishment gradient & re-re-reiterated promise khổng lồ be transparent, everything involved in what Facebook proposes seems just as obscure & arbitrary as the decision that led khổng lồ Trump’s ban.

Xem thêm: Chỉnh Khoảng Cách Dòng Trong Photoshop, Chỉnh Sửa Khoảng Cách, Nét Chữ Đậm

“We know that any penalty we apply — or choose not to lớn apply — will be controversial,” writes Clegg. True, but while some people will be happy with some decisions and others angry, all are united in their desire to have sầu the processes that lead to said penalties elucidated and adhered to lớn. Today’s policy changes bởi vì not appear to lớn accomplish that, regarding Trump or anyone else.