Meta has lifted the final restrictions on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the run up to US presidential elections in November.

The ex-US president and convicted felon’s accounts were suspended in 2021 after he praised supporters who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January.

Trump’s accounts, which combined have over 60 million followers, were re-instated in 2023 but subject to additional monitoring, which has now been removed, the social media giant said in a blog post.

Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    And in particular, they didn’t silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.

    Has he been convicted of that? We can all wring our hands as much as we want, and god knows I’m not a Trump supporter, but Facebook are not going to embroil themselves into a legal battle over this.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        So Facebook is supposed to block the GOP presidential nominee because other people were charged of a crime and he was not? We’d all like that, but come on.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          no, just cuz he broke their rules… repeatedly… and says violent hateful shit… and spreads misinformation. Trump supporters whine about their bans or posts being removed when they post the vile shit they like to spew. Why does Trump get a pass?

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Why does Trump get a pass?

            Because that’s much easier for Facebook than dealing with the clusterfuck that would result if they didn’t.

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              So political leaders get a pass to break all the rules? I don’t understand your reasoning. The rules should be applied only to people without power? Facebook should just always take the “easiest” path for moderation?

              What about leaders elsewhere that explicitly call for violence or perpetrate it? Is there a line somewhere?

              • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                The rules should be applied only to people without power?

                Unfortunately, this is how it usually works out. Unjust bullshit, but this is the world we live in.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Facebook does not have nearly as high a burden of proof as a court of law.

      Facebook most likely has a far larger budget for their legal team, too. I don’t think they’d be worried about a lawsuit.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      He’s been convicted in the court of public opinion. Facebook doesn’t need to wait for a court to bar him from their platform.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        They don’t, but it’s much easier for them this way. It’s mind-boggling that so many in this thread want Facebook to go way out on a limb here and are shocked when the multi-billion dollar company takes the much easier, safer way out. Stop expecting tech megacorps to decide the presidential race for you, people. You may think you want that now, but it’s a VERY bad precedent.