3 ms·
That does not say what you're claiming it does. The article is very clearly talking about the response to Trump: > correct response should be "consistent with
by Falling3 5y ago
That does not say what you're claiming it does. The article is very clearly talking about the response to Trump:
> correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".
That's the entire focus of the article is a consistent response from Facebook. It makes absolutely no mention of the action that precipitated the response.
- thu2111 5y agoBut their response was to ban him, which means the response consistent with the rules applied to other people would have yielded no ban.
- Falling3 5y agoUhuh... which says absolutely nothing about what rules he broke. I'm not sure what part of that you're getting hung up on.
- thu2111 5y agoI also don't understand quite why there's disagreement here, so perhaps it's best to just end it here. From my perspective what the oversight board says is simple: Trump was banned, but not because he broke any actual rule, as evidenced by the fact that everyone else on the platform can do the same things and not be banned. Perhaps you're interpreting it differently as: he broke a rule, which happens to only be enforced against people named Donald Trump. Well, most people wouldn't recognize such things as genuine rules, which is probably why the oversight board had such difficulty with it.
- Falling3 5y agoThere's absolutely nothing that needs to be interpreted here. The article - and even the specific sentence you quoted - make it clear that its discussing the response to a user's actions and not the actions themselves. I'm not saying Trump did or did not break a rule, but neither did this article. You're completely inventing the notion that Trump's actions were discussed.