Image 01 Image 03

Facebook ‘Oversight Board’ Upholds Trump Ban, But Says It Can’t Be Indefinite

Facebook ‘Oversight Board’ Upholds Trump Ban, But Says It Can’t Be Indefinite

A completely unaccountable international board governing our political speech. It would be like handing over our rights to the U.N.

No one should be surprised that Facebook’s “Oversight Board” has upheld the suspension of Donald Trump from the platform, though giving Facebook six months to figure out a non-premanent remedy.

I warned about this Oversight Board a year ago, on May 25, 2020, Facebook creates unaccountable international Board to decide which content gets censored:

Anti-conservative bias by the social media giants which dominate our means of political communication has been a topic we’ve covered for many years….

There has been a potentially more damaging development at Facebook, the creation of an independent Oversight Board consisting initially of 20 people from around the world to make decisions on what content should be banned….

One of the Americans appointed is law professor Pamela Karlin, who testified in favor of impeaching Donald Trump in a moment that went viral.

What’s particularly freightening is not the people involved — assume the first 20 individuals are taking on the assignment in good faith — it’s the concept of outsourcing censorhip decisions that will limit American political speech to a board which, by Facebook’s own description, answers to no one other than the Board itself….

The “Purpose” of the Board, according to Facebook, is to promote free speech, but in fact, the decisions it makes will not promote free speech, but determine which of that free speech should be restricted….

What could go wrong? Everything.

Four of the initial Oversight Board members wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times explaining this new venture (emphasis added): ***

Notice the focus on “hate speech”? This sounds all too familiar to those of us on campuses who have faced the false accusation that our differing views are “hate speech.” While the First Amendment doesn’t strictly apply to private platforms, we expect that the principles of the First Amendment will apply at least generally on platforms that purport to be places for widespread public communication.

True to expectations, the Oversight Board has upheld Facebooks Trump ban, though saying it can’t go on forever:

The Board has upheld Facebook’s decision on January 7, 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trump’s access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account.

However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.

The Board insists that Facebook review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform. Facebook must complete its review of this matter within six months of the date of this decision. The Board also made policy recommendations for Facebook to implement in developing clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression.

A completely unaccountable international board governing our political speech. It would be like handing over our rights to the U.N.

You can view your masters here.

Folks, this is all about 2024


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Does Facebook have a policy on the PRC’s actions in Hong Kong?

Just asking. . .

    venril in reply to NYBruin. | May 5, 2021 at 10:58 am

    The policy is to ban whatever the PRC tells them to ban. Especially folks in Hong Kong protesting for their freedom from a totalitarian State. Anything to protect their market share in the PRC.

    FB identifies with the Totalitarian state and is treating it as a role model.

USA outsourced free speech to a private company with a political agenda.

WTF ? How did we allow this to happen ?

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Ben Kent. | May 5, 2021 at 10:50 am

    Cancel or be cancelled! Why are you still on FascistBook?

    henrybowman in reply to Ben Kent. | May 6, 2021 at 2:00 am

    It began back when Zero took ITAR out of America’s hands and gave it to the rest of the world to “diverserupt.” Just like when President Peanut handed the Panama Canal over. Wealth and power transfer, Democrat style, all the way.

    “If you build it, they will… take it from you and give it to someone else.”

“The challenge for the board is to determine at what point your freedom of speech ends and the human rights of others take over.”

This is a lie. The real challenge for the board is to keep the hated Trump off of Facebook while at the same time pretending to be kinda sorta fair and maybe even almost kinda like reasonable.

Even with wishy washy terms like that, they failed miserably.

    JHogan in reply to irv. | May 5, 2021 at 9:20 pm

    Their ‘review’ process was an extended rationalization session. They already knew what they wanted to do and what they would do. They spent all their effort, however little it really was, trying to justify and rationalize it. It’s another leftwing Big Lie and smoke screen.

    The fact is Facebook censored and is continuing to censor an ex-President of the United States who received at least 74 million votes just a few months ago. The most that any incumbent President ever received,

    And the fact is Facebook is a highly partisan leftwing organization that uses its power to advance its politics.

    henrybowman in reply to irv. | May 6, 2021 at 2:02 am

    Trump needs to loudly and publicly respond, “I wouldn’t belong to your stupid club if you owned the only baseball in the neighborhood. Besides, I saved up and bought my own baseball, so nyahh nyahh!”

There is no human right not to be offended.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | May 5, 2021 at 3:44 pm

    In fact, people learn from being offended that their conduct is no acceptable in civilized society.

    There is in the Woke Bible. Which is in a perpetual state of revision and amendment and expansion.

    And it currently clearly states that offending white devils is to be encouraged. It’s essentially a Woke sacramental ritual to be engaged in at every possible opportunity along with as many fellow Woke believers as possible..

What a joke

Connivin Caniff | May 5, 2021 at 11:02 am

These creeps are digging their own graves. Their argument that they are private, non-governmental entities is getting a bit old and they more than ever represent a concerted, dangerous threat to free speech. They conspire and act as monopolies against the public interest. They should be treated as public utilities with all that implies. Why isn’t the Republican screaming and publicizing this like crazy and filing multiple lawsuits under the Sherman Act etc.? Oh, I forgot, politics has strange bedfellows, right Luntz and McCarthy?

    “Trump’s spell over the media broke once he lost his social media megaphones”
    Really? Then why is the media still obsessing over him?
    Why is this FB ban such big news??
    Trump lives rent-free in their heads, still.
    The media continues to provide such good comic relief!

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Connivin Caniff. | May 5, 2021 at 3:48 pm

    American tech companies have a vision, one where they rule the roost. They need to be busted up. This makes Ma Bell look like petty .stuff.

Did this same board simultaneously announce bans on Maxine Waters and BLM? If not, do they not have any board members with an inkling of fairness? Is a requirement to serve on the board that one must be 100% Woke with 0% Common Sense?

    mark311 in reply to 20keto20. | May 5, 2021 at 11:17 am

    They haven’t made a decision on those and therefore the oversight board cant make a decision on something that hasn’t been decided. I guess that’s a flaw in the way it operates?

    They question they were answering only related to DT, To be honest the decision was pretty straight forward there was plenty of cause to ban Trump its the length of the sentence that’s in dispute.

    The broader issue of how much power Facebook should have is very much a separate question and I for one would very much favour restricting it.

      CommoChief in reply to mark311. | May 5, 2021 at 1:08 pm


      Could you please clarify? A list of specific words and phrases would be helpful. Absent an objective listing we are left with an entirely subjective standard in application.

      Yes FB has ‘guidelines’ about content but that language is so generalized and non specific that it offers no clear objective standard.

      Most of us don’t want anyone’s speech regulated by any entity public or private. Vague definitions that seem inconsistent in application are not helpful to convincing those of us on the side of liberty.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to CommoChief. | May 5, 2021 at 3:28 pm

        “Most of us don’t want anyone’s speech regulated by any entity public or private.”

        I agree, at the same time I would not mind Abrams yap being wired shut.

        mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | May 5, 2021 at 3:50 pm

        Of course commochief. I’ll do my best to explain what I mean.

        Your comment about FB’s guidelines gets to the heart of the decision made. The oversight panels decision was in effect that the original decision may well have been correct for X reasons but given the lack of clarity on FBs rules how does it intend to apply rules fairly across the board. This is why the oversight board have thrown the decision back at FB so that they can sort there shit out. Some of the comments on here relate to how FB rules apply elsewhere which is entirely fair , and the oversight boards decision reflects that.

        In terms of your next para on regulates free speech that’s a difficult issue. There are several threads to this as far as I can tell. Firstly FB has a very powerful position with many users globally, secondly that it has a history of allowing misinformation to be consumed by those using the platform and three a haphazard approach to rules. FB has been desperate not to be labelled with the title editor it has wanted to remain above the verbal fray so to speak but I think it’s inescapable that it’s position means that it has to take responsibility for the content on the platform. This creates a tension with free speech, and gets into the thorny questions of how free. Free to lie? Free to be fascist? Free to advocate terrorism? Free speech is an important right and should be defended but there is an ugly side to it which can and has gotten out of control in some media forms. I don’t know what the answer to that question is but I acknowledge that there is a thorny problem to resolve. This is why I’m pretty vague in my comment I’m not really sure of myself when it comes to making a strong opinion.

        Hope that makes sense

          CommoChief in reply to mark311. | May 5, 2021 at 6:12 pm


          Thanks for responding. A few further thoughts.

          Free Speech – FB and the rest of social media could simply take a hands off approach apart from criminal activity. If someone is using their platform to coordinate, plan or document a criminal act and is banned practically no one would mind, other than a few progressive.

          Free speech is free. It can be offensive or hurtful or demeaning. Hurt feelings? IMO, tell your Mom or your therapist.

          Anyone too sensitive to view a mean tweet or mean post is not capable of facing the everyday cruelty life brings. Our society has cast off restraining norms in favor of the crude and profane.

          Regulation- These social media companies have chosen to become partisan in the manner of application of their policies. Eventually, very soon IMO, they will be regulated as common carriers because they picked a side v a neutral application of a set of clear, objective standards.

          Your response essentially states that you are not clear what the standards are but still accept their inconsistent application of an opaque and subjective process to ban speech they disagree with. That is very troubling.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 6, 2021 at 4:17 am


          “Your response essentially states that you are not clear what the standards are but still accept their inconsistent application of an opaque and subjective process to ban speech they disagree with. That is very troubling.”

          Perhaps i wasn’t clear I don’t accept that Facebook have clear standards and thus don’t apply their rules evenly across the spectrum. Which is why I support the independent oversight boards decision in principle. And yes its practically independent now as it doesn’t get funded by FB as far as I’m aware – the initial set up fee was stumped up by FB but not maintained by FB any longer.

          I agree with our comments prior to that absolutely but that’s kind of what they are doing. It doesn’t really get to the crux because in the usual circumstances crimes are judged by a court they don’t have that luxury they have to make a decision on the fly effectively on what might look like criminal activity. Clearly this is difficult when a comment might be in a grey area.

          CommoChief in reply to mark311. | May 6, 2021 at 9:17 am


          Several times you have acknowledged the process breaks down when the speech is in a grey zone.

          IMO, the easiest way to view that sort of speech is view it from a liberty standpoint. In other words, if not clearly criminal then let it stand.

          Again, IMO, there should not be any ‘tension’ between speech and banning speech outside of the very narrow band of clearly criminal speech/ content.

          Obviously that would result in far less speech/content being removed which would be a good thing for those who want to maximize individual liberty.

          The folks opposed to individual liberty and in favor of replacing individual rights with group rights oppose this standard.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 6, 2021 at 9:27 am


          Yeah I’m not sure where I would draw the line, but can respect your view for sure.

      Arminius in reply to mark311. | May 5, 2021 at 5:04 pm

      “They haven’t made a decision on those and therefore the oversight board cant make a decision on something that hasn’t been decided. I guess that’s a flaw in the way it operates?”

      No, that’s how it is intended to operate. Facebook’s “Trust and Safety Team” (now there’s an Orwellian name for what are in fact merely censors) can act arbitrarily and capriciously and simply ban “hate speech.” What is hate speech? Speech they hate. So DJT can be banned for saying nothing worse than what others are saying. But if “Trust and Safety Team” dislikes DJT he’ll be banned merely for questioning the results of an election but approves of another individual or group that favored group can issue actual, explicit death threats and won’t be banned.

      I’ll give you an example. It’s from YouTube, but like all social media sites they have their own censors but of course they have their own Orwellian names for them.

      There are ex-Muslims who have YouTube channels on which they explain why they left Islam. In doing so they’re extremely critical of Islam because it’s the content of the religion that made them decide to leave. A British Muslim with his own YouTube channel started issuing death threats to them because they are apostates. And he cited the religious authority for killing anyone “who leaves their Muslim religion.”

      It is a fact that Shariah law calls for the killing of apostates based upon Muhammad’s teachings which are found in the Hadith collections. For instance, one such hadith is found in Sunan Abi Dawud, volume 40, Prescribed Punishments (Kitab al-Hudud), Chapter 1:- Ruling on one who apostatizes:

      “`Abd Allah (b. Mas`ud) reported the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying:

      The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah should not be lawfully shed but only for one of three reasons: married fornicator, soul for soul, and one who deserts his religion separating himself from the community.

      It’s a Sahih hadith, genuine, the highest grade, which means all Sunni Muslims must accept it. To deny the truth of it for a Sunni is in itself apostasy.

      Others, such as a Christian apologist whose videos I enjoy, criticized the guy issuing the death threats as well as a religion that would have such a command and cited the same hadith. He did so for a solid reason. Many Muslims will deny their religion calls for the killing of apostates, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes not. And after years of “Imams” Bush, Obama, Blair, Merkel, et al claiming “Islam is a religion of peace” a lot of ignorant Westerners will refuse to believe Islam could possibly command Muslims to kill anyone.

      The Muslim cited ahadith that commands Muslims to kill apostates, and the Christian cited the same ahadith in order to wake people up to the fact that those commands really exist in Islam.

      The Christian was banned for “inciting hatred’ but the Muslim death threat video stayed up.

      Because the Muslim is a member of a favored group (YouTube policy calls favored groups “marginalized”) but Christians are not.

      Calling for killing is OK with YouTube. Saying that killing is wrong is not OK with YouTube. Depending on who is doing what.

        mark311 in reply to Arminius. | May 6, 2021 at 4:21 am

        Your specific example is a good one, Clearly they gotten that wrong.

        Id be intrigued as to know what Christian Apologists you listen too? ITs an area im quite interested in? William Lane Craig and Frank Turek are the two I’m most familiar with.

    irv in reply to 20keto20. | May 5, 2021 at 11:55 am


theduchessofkitty | May 5, 2021 at 11:16 am

Guess what, FB? Trump doesn’t need any of you. And quite frankly, we don’t need you, either.

Like I care. I quit Fakebook a year ago.

They favor banning Trump for reacting and exposing the offenses of diversity, JournoLism, social platforms, and steering engines in the role of misinformation and disinfomation progress. Good for the oversight board to protect their special and peculiar interests. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness. That said, take a knee, beg, good girl.

Never been on twit face, never will.

Wait, FB is comparing Trump’s refusal to concede (not a legal requirement, just tradition) and his questioning of the, shall we say, “statistically interesting” election results as equivalent to leading a secession and subsequent multi-front war?

They’re as crazy as they are stupid as they are ugly.

    CaliforniaJimbo in reply to gonzotx. | May 5, 2021 at 2:27 pm

    If refusal to concede an election is a banning offense on Facebook, why does Stacy Abrams still have an account?

      mark311 in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | May 5, 2021 at 3:54 pm

      That wasn’t the issue, it was Trumps open support for those entering the Capitol building and in many people’s eyes this amounted to an insurrection. He certainly had the appearance of supporting violence.

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | May 5, 2021 at 5:32 pm

        That’s an outright, deliberate lie. The only thing he said about those people was basically “You mean well, we love you, but go home”.

        Also, plain trespass, which is all they did, does not resemble insurrection in any way; those claiming to see it that way should be presumed to be lying.

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2021 at 2:25 am

          Well, trespass and vandalism. Still, people elsewhere declared a portion of US territory to be “autonomous,” and ran a revolutionary, ad-hoc government there, one that received actual shipments of illegal arms, and under which at least two firearms murders were committed, but that wasn’t “insurrection” or “secession,” just good old mostly peaceful protest with an incidental collateral death or two.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2021 at 2:30 am

          Most of the people who entered the Capitol, even the ones who knew they were trespassing, did no vandalism. There were only a few vandals. And I’m not even counting the many who entered through an open door and stayed within the ropes, and who had no reason to believe they were doing anything wrong.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2021 at 4:48 am

          No its not, just because you interpret DT’s words (and there are other quotes above an beyond what you state) very generously and seemly without any reference to the context at all.

          Yeah I’m sorry Milhouse but you are not really appreciating the attempt to disrupt a democratic transfer of power, death threats etc.

          You don’t get to claim anyone’s lying just because people don’t agree with you. That’s fundamentally dishonest. You can make all your ad hominem attacks all you want that doesn’t change the facts, and people getting to have there own interpretation of them.

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2021 at 5:08 am

          Sure, but I’m tying to be even-handed here. After all, most of the people who participated in BLM demonstrations didn’t loot, or burn Autozones or police cars.

        JHogan in reply to mark311. | May 5, 2021 at 9:24 pm


      henrybowman in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | May 6, 2021 at 2:13 am

      Because she needs one to promote the re-release of her bodice-ripper novels.

    mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | May 5, 2021 at 3:52 pm

    Statistically interesting eh how did you come to that conclusion?

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | May 5, 2021 at 5:40 pm

      There were a lot of anomalies in the results. It was an unusual election in many ways. That doesn’t prove the results were wrong, but you can’t deny that the anomalies exist.

        He can and he does. Not because he has actually looked at the evidence, as we all know since he dismisses anything we say out of hand, but because the Democrat activist media proopagandists have convinced him so by mere repetition from sources he is naive enough to believe are credible. It’s kind of sad.

          You can say that Mark311 is a Stacey Adams ‘mini-me’.

          But then, who isn’t?

          henrybowman in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 6, 2021 at 2:30 am

          If one is going to be an idiot, at least one should be a useful one.

          mark311 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 6, 2021 at 4:51 am

          Well that’s false, I’ve looked at every argument present and spent time rebutting. That’s hardly dismissive is it. Still waiting for that source that proves your point btw..

          I read very widely , and have yet to see an argument from anywhere across the spectrum that supports your position that hasn’t been debunked. If anything its you that’s lapped up the DT nonsense.

          And with this you prove my point. You are tiny little person who must have the “evidence” you demand, in the form you demand, from the source you demand. That’s the working definition of out of your intellectual depth. And it’s that childish insistence that we play by your rules that makes you a joke here.

          Still waiting for just that leftist-approved rebuttal of left-think? Ooooh, you’ll be waiting a long time, mark311, because there is no such thing. But you know that (well, maybe you know that, I’m not convinced you are clever enough to recognize the rhetorical logistics here–I suspect, instead, that you just spout the same crap over and over, with your string-pullers hoping it will stick.).

          When I trot out DJT “nonsense,” call me on it. In the meantime, stop being a self-inflated bore who thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. You’re not. Not by a long long long shot. Everyone here is smarter than you, including our other resident trolls.

          henrybowman in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 6, 2021 at 5:15 am

          Because it’s not worth my time to argue with you.
          I can present plenty of evidence; you will just baselessly claim it “has been debunked,” a standard leftist ploy to avoid engaging the evidence.
          You’re the one sucking down the sheep-dip. You need to get out of your comfortable leftist media bubble, read the truth from the sources we read, and learn what the rest of us already know.
          It’s not my job to educate you. But ridiculing you is an acceptable effort.

          mark311 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 6, 2021 at 7:54 am

          @Henry Bowman,

          Sure, those excuses sound hollow and as usual you’ve mischaracterised me. Its pretty clear that you’ve nothing of substance.

          I spend quite a bit of time and effort explaining my positions. Sure there are arguments presented to me where i use the term debunked but that’s reflective of how poor an argument it is. If you want me to go into detail I’m happy to do so but just characterising it as some kind of tactic isn’t helpful.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2021 at 4:54 am

        That was the question , what anomalies? If you are suggesting that a large turnout was one then so what? Or if you are suggesting that DT doing better than the poll predictions, that does the inverse of support an election fraud case. Or if you are suggesting that the voting patterns were such that late votes were to the Democrats that’s not an anomaly it was predicted prior because of the known understanding about Democrats using postal votes which were counted later on. So please tell me what anomalies you are thinking of.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | May 6, 2021 at 5:24 am

          Start with the anomaly of the entire election hinging on a handful of deep-blue cities, every one of which “suspended operations’ in the wee hours of the next day — a procedure in which not a single American city has ever engaged in the entire history of US elections — when the counts in every one of them showed Donald Trump in the lead… and when they returned from the hiatus, the tallies from every one of them had flipped to Biden.

          Continue with the absolute s*-fit the Democrats are having over the ongoing Arizona audit, and their continuous attempts to enjoin or disrupt it. This is certainly a lot of effort being expended by a group who claims they have nothing to hide.

          Here’s some grist for your mill. It’s less than a day old, so if it’s been debunked, it would be because one of the usual leftist suspects quickly mounted his podium so he loudly declaim, “This is debunked, amen!”

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 6, 2021 at 8:46 am

          1) Suspended operations

          Since you aren’t being very specific ill assume you are referring to the rumour about 5 states stopping counting. The public records indicate that never happened. The only sources that made that claim was Sidney Powell who is pretty clear is a total liar. She has never supported that accusation with any actual evidence.

          2) Democrats take lead late
          This was well predicted because everyone knew many, many more Democrat’s vote by post and those were counted late on. That’s been well understood since prior to the 2020 election.

          3)Arizona Audit

          Can you blame them, when a private company with zero experience in elections wants to recount votes in private without supervision when its a partisan company and cant even get there processes right to comply with the federal law. Sure id be having a shit fit too.

          4) Nothing to hide

          That’s a weak argument, if you are going to make a claim then back it up. Otherwise that’s an open invitation for anyone to do anything. Can I examine your house sir, no, well surely why not if you’ve nothing to hide. I want to see the contents of your bank account, No, surely not if you’ve nothing to hide. ITs worse than that in this case because every aspect of the 2020 fraud case has been riddled with errors, lies, misconception and stupidity. There have been many court cases including ones where Trumps legal team have presented evidence, there have been recounts and audits yet nothing shows up. At some point you have to say enough. Bring some evidence then maybe but until then stop wasting every bodies time and money.

          5) Report/Link

          The cited expert is Dr Douglas Frank he actually released a preliminary analysis on YouTube a month ago. That preliminary analysis was utter crap. Not one single data point he used was correct. In other words it was a shit show. He doesn’t disclose how he puts together the ‘6th order polynomial’ and when recreating some of the claims he makes the answer comes out significantly differently. He even lies in the presentation using different ratios to get the result he wants.

          Thank you for trying though, I appreciate you actually engaging for once rather than throwing insults.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 6, 2021 at 9:25 am

          @Henry Bowman

          Just noticed there was a second expert report. The Lenburg report is pretty sparse on details. A few threads there:

          1) Doesn’t show if manipulation actually happened
          2) Not clear at all whether or not the systems and machines used were the same. Hard to identify the set up of the particular county in hand
          3) The report practically concludes there is virtually no discussion at all.
          4)I’m not clear how a vote swap scenario would work. Since county Antrim is the one in question and Trump won that county that doesn’t suggest a swap at all.

    JHogan in reply to gonzotx. | May 5, 2021 at 9:23 pm

    Neo-Commies will do what neo-Commies will do.

Virginia42 | May 5, 2021 at 1:30 pm

FB Fascisti in action.

FortesFortunaJuvat | May 5, 2021 at 1:49 pm

Anyone using FB (Twitter, Instagram, etc.) deserves what they get.

JusticeDelivered | May 5, 2021 at 2:43 pm

I don’t need a board’s permission to ban Facebook indefinitely. I really dislike their business model.

It happens here

Ace Of Spades banned me, I know not why

they did once before, like 5 years ago, for backing Trump and not Cruz

same thing, just ban and no reason

so it happens everywhere

    Andy in reply to REDACTED. | May 5, 2021 at 3:26 pm

    Wow- Ace is in my daily reading. Though it does seem like they intentionally format the site to look like a manifesto written on toilet paper in an airport restroom.

Of course it isn’t permanent. They’ll rescind it in about 20 years, or two years after he dies, whichever comes first.

Parler is down this afternoon.

Pure coincidence.

If it can’t be indefinite, and it surely isn’t definite, then what must it be? I’ve misplaced my Orwellian Dictionary.

Facebook’s political censors getting a second opinion from their ‘Oversight Board’ is like Comrade Joe getting a second opinion from Comrade Kamala.

    Odd, but Biden has been looking pathetic, and since he’s been stuffed into the White House, he doesn’t seem much different.

    But Harris is looking worse, and worse, and worse as each day goes on. She really is a zero. A total zero. Amazing.

So this was based on the events of Jan. 6, isn’t there reporting out there were multiple parties were using facebook as a platform to organize and promote the protest. To the best of my knowledge none of these accounts were deplatformed.

The remainder of Trump’s natural life is not, technically, a permanent ban.

Why do people use Facebook? I quit FB years ago after they banned me and don’t miss it one bit. What is it good for? I don’t need FB to read the news – there are infinite sources of news on the internet. I don’t need FB to keep in contact with friends and family. Lots of other better secure ways to do that.

How many people have had their lives destroyed by putting their personal thoughts on FB for the world to see? I have been on the internet from the beginning and in the early days you never put personal information on the internet – you learned to be anonymous and that is how I operate today. Only morons would put their personal information on the internet.

Trump should use every opportunity he gets to urge people to cancel their FB accounts. FB share prices would plummet and soon it would be as relevant as Myspace. Does anyone fret over censorship from MySpace? That’s how we deal with tech tyranny. Don’t give them the power to rule over us.