Facebook users are now all equal.
The American giant announced Friday that politicians would no longer benefit from preferential treatment when they violate the rules of the social network.
How did Facebook make this decision?
Why now ?
We take stock.
An exception extended to policies in 2019
Until now, the moderators of the California platform have been much more tolerant of a head of state or political leader than with the rest of the population. A decision assumed in 2019 by Nick Clegg, the director of public affairs of the firm: “From now on, we will treat the speeches of politicians as newsworthy content that should, as a rule, be seen and heard. "Facebook's role is" not to arbitrate political debates and prevent a politician's speech from reaching its audience and from being subjected to public debate and scrutiny, "he said. justified.
This policy of exemption from the standards of the Facebook community for publications deemed worthy of public interest has existed since 2016. It was put in place after the censorship of the photo of "the little girl with Napalm", a famous snapshot symbolizing the horror of the Vietnam War in 1972, in order to allow the media to broadcast content showing nudity or violence.
The Donald Trump case
But Donald Trump, quick to downplay the seriousness of the pandemic or to denounce, without proof, alleged electoral fraud, has been there.
And Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who has long refused to play the role of "arbiter of online truth," had to back down.
The invasion of the United States Congress on January 6 marked a turning point. The former White House tenant had posted a video during the assault in which he called on the Capitol rioters to calm down ... while at the same time contesting the victory of Joe Biden, which he once again called of "fly". “We love you”, he repeated. The next day, Facebook suspended Donald Trump's account, without returning to its list of political figures exempt from certain sanctions.
Four months later, on May 5, the very young supervisory board of Facebook - a sort of internal Supreme Court which can challenge the decisions of moderation - validated this suspension, before calling on the network to clarify its "arbitrary" rules: "The same rules should apply to all users," insisted its international and independent members.
“The Council emphasizes that heads of state and senior government officials are more likely to cause harm than others.
If a head of state or senior government official has repeatedly posted messages that pose a risk of harm under international human rights standards, Facebook must suspend the affected account for a period sufficient to protect against such imminent harm ” , they justified.
Read also What is the "supervisory board" that validated the suspension of Trump's account?
Of which act: "When we evaluate content in terms of importance for information, we will not treat the words of politicians differently from those of others", finally indicated Friday Nick Clegg, after announcing that the account of Donald Trump was suspended for two years.
The former US president will only be able to return when the "risks to the safety of the public have disappeared," the platform said.
Measures deemed insufficient on the left, liberticides on the right
“Donald Trump has shown how a political leader can use social media to undermine democratic institutions, such as elections and the peaceful transfer of power.
Facebook is right to change tactics and apply its rules against harmful behavior to policies, ”said Paul Barrett, professor of law at New York University.
But many NGOs consider that the network has for too long amplified the inflammatory remarks of the Republican billionaire, and should exclude him for good, like Twitter.
If he returned, the platform "would remain a cauldron of extremism, disinformation and violence," assured Angelo Carusone, president of the Media Matters for America association.
While the Democrats accuse the social network of its ineffectiveness in containing disinformation, the Republicans accuse it of censorship. For its part, Facebook called on Parliament to take its responsibilities. “American democracy does not belong to Silicon Valley,” Nick Clegg said in an interview with the Brookings Institution. “We keep repeating that it would be much better in the long run for elected officials and regulators to make these decisions, rather than for us to set up our own supervisory board. "