Just want to flag what I think is important context for Facebook's decision not to take action on Trump's incitement to violence.

Facebook's has track record of ignoring incitement to violence by government officials and it is catastrophically bad. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/may/29/george-floyd-killing-protests-minneapolis-minnesota-us-twitter-donald-trump-latest-news-live?page=with:block-5ed17d988f087122eca522f5#block-5ed17d988f087122eca522f5

The US tech and politics media has a huge bias toward viewing Facebook as an American company, but the vast majority of its users (90%) live in other countries where Facebook has long acted with little regard for the safety of the public.

Zuck has now defended leaving up the post by revealing the Facebook has a policy to allow warnings of the use of force by state actors. AFAIK this is the first time the company has put such a policy in writing. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/may/29/george-floyd-killing-protests-minneapolis-minnesota-us-twitter-donald-trump-latest-news-live?page=with:block-5ed19ac88f087122eca52383#block-5ed19ac88f087122eca52383

It's not the first time that the question of policy violations by state vs non-state actors has come up, however. This has been very much at play in Myanmar, where FB has put its thumb on the scale by allowing the Tatmadaw free reign while banning recognized ethnic armies

I wrote about this question in 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/07/facebook-myanmar-genocide-violence-hate-speech