Mark Zuckerberg

Cathy Newman, The Independent

I miss Donald Trump. And by that I mean I miss waking up every morning and checking my Twitter feed for the latest incendiary tweet from the former US president. But it looks as if we’ll all be deprived of easy access to newsworthy Trumpisms for a while longer.

Trump’s ban from Facebook and Instagram was upheld by the tech giant’s oversight board. After that, Twitter will be in no hurry to reinstate him on their platform. In some ways, the decision came as little surprise. After Trump told supporters attacking the Capitol in January that “we love you, you’re very special”, Facebook’s boss Mark Zuckerberg said the “risks” of allowing the former president to continue on the site were “simply too great”. The oversight board – dubbed the tech company’s “supreme court” – agreed, with some caveats, of which more later. How does Facebook’s response compare with the way Trump might have been treated by “traditional” media companies?

We’d hear from Trump any day. In fact, it’s a source of some regret that he didn’t agree to an interview with us during his time in office. But if he’d said some of the things he’s dropped on social media over the years, he – and we – may well have fallen foul of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom’s rules. Section 3 of Ofcom’s broadcasting code covers material “likely to incite crime or disorder”, and the regulator prohibits such content being aired. If Channel 4 was to err, we’d incur a fine, or even ultimately lose our licence. And if Trump misled or lied to our viewers, we’d expect to challenge him, and our award-winning FactCheck blog would unpick every syllable he uttered. That’s the beauty of public service broadcasting. As it is, though, Facebook is behaving more and more like a publisher or broadcaster, making editorial decisions about the content that appears on its platform. And yet, it’s still not facing the same regulatory restrictions that we do.

This goes all the way back to 1996, when Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Described as the most important law governing internet speech, it gives sites the ability to regulate content on their platforms, effectively shielding online service providers from lawsuits arising from material posted on their platforms.

But now the genie is out of the bottle, Facebook realises belatedly that it’s unleashed something it can’t control. And as hate speech, fake news and online abuse proliferate, lawmakers across the globe have the company in their sights.

The oversight board was the tech giant’s own solution. But the announcement has, its many critics say, simply highlighted its shortcomings. Its detailed 12,000-word judgment appeared carefully thought through. But ultimately, after extending the Trump ban for another six months, it punted the decision back to Facebook.

Republicans and Democrats alike aren’t happy, using what they see as a 12,000-word fudge to intensify calls for proper regulation. A White House spokesperson said after the “decision” that “more needs to be done”.

In America, there are proposals for a new federal agency to oversee digital platforms, and government hearings in Washington are exploring legislative action. Here, an online safety bill is on the way, although there are warnings it won’t become law for years. It’s surprising there is not more urgency. Because, arguably, the very fabric of our society, democracy and the rule of law is threatened by the havoc being wrought online. Zuckerberg has himself repeatedly called for regulation. That’s made his detractors wary, suspecting that the tech companies want to push politicians towards tamer, more toothless oversight.

Perhaps Facebook and the other tech companies are simply too big to regulate now. Some Republicans and Democrats have, for entirely different reasons, argued that breaking them up is now the only solution.

Zuckerberg’s mantra “move fast and break things” is coming back to haunt him. He’d better buckle up for the ride.