There really is so much great analysis in the Facebook civil rights audit - most important to my eyes are the sections on voter suppression, which really get at the heart of the problem.

"It confounds the Auditors as to why Facebook has failed to grasp the urgency of interpreting existing policies to make them effective against suppression and ensuring that their enforcement tools are as effective as possible."

"Specifically, we have grave concerns that the combination of the company’s decision to exempt politicians from
fact-checking and the precedents set by its recent decisions on President Trump’s posts..."

"leaves the door open for
the platform to be used by other politicians to interfere with voting."

Above all - I think it is fair. Both pointing out positive changes in existing policy, and areas for improvement. I like that it zeros in on the problem of selective enforcement, especially in relation to the president.

"The Auditors are deeply concerned that Facebook’s recent decisions on posts by President Trump indicate a
tremendous setback for all of the policies that attempt to ban voter suppression on Facebook"

"To the civil rights community, there was no question that these posts fell squarely within the prohibitions of Facebook’s voter interference policy. Facebook’s constrained reading of its policies was both astounding and deeply
troubling for the precedents it seemed to set."

And the irony we have long been working to point out @unc_citap: "In response to the press coverage around these decisions, Mark Zuckerberg has reasserted publicly that platforms
should not be “arbiters of truth.”"

"Facebook seemed to be celebrating its refusal to be the “arbiter of truth” on factual
assertions regarding what methods of voting are permitted in a state or how one obtains a ballot—despite having a
policy that prohibits factual misrepresentations of those very facts."

Worth reading the whole audit for its insightful critique of all of the inconsistencies in Facebook's policies and enforcement.

Again, to my eyes, voter suppression and electoral misinformation is the clearest cut case of low value political speech. It should be acted against because it is speech deliberately designed to deny people their right to vote, and therefore their right to expression.

And platforms have no obligations to be partners in politicians undermining the very source of their own accountability.