In light of the @OversightBoard's recent decision in the Trump case, I'd like to share a few reflections and highlight portions of the decision that might not otherwise attract as much attention as they should. I'll proceed sequentially. Here goes... 1/15

For @OversightBoard newbies or those who question if we have the authority to hear this case, our founding documents explain how it has been properly referred (see Charter Art. 2, Sec. 1; Bylaws Art. 2, Sec. 2.1). They're available on our website, http://www.oversightboard.com . 2/15

The @OversightBoard considers three sets of standards to reach its decisions: (1) @Facebook's content policies; (2) FB's values; (3) Int'l Human Rights Law. The latter is critical given FB's global reach & need for int'l, consistent and legitimate standards (Section 4.iii). 3/15

We prioritize user voice (given FB's power), so it's positive that Mr. Trump submitted a user statement in this case. Unfortunately, it is replete w/ falsehoods e.g. the attack on the Capitol was clearly “influenced, and most probably ignited by outside forces.” (Sec. 5) 4/15

Further, it argues that the Board should "defer to American law in this appeal” and use U.S. constitutional law to assess the danger of the speech in question. But, as explained above, we do not apply local law (including domestic US law). I'll come back to this later...5/15

Sec. 6 of the decision summarizes what info @Facebook shared as part of the case file. This is a key part of any case decision because we rely on FB for critical information to explain its decisions, the context behind them, and other relevant/details considerations. 6/15

There's an understandable tension between the @OversightBoard's desire for extensive information to help with its decision-making and FB's desire to keep a case file more focused (and avoid "fishing expeditions"). FB sometimes declines to answer our questions so... 7/15

We call them out for that. We asked 46 questions and FB declined to answer 7 entirely and 2 partially, including on whether FB had been contacted/pressured by gov't officials in this case; and questions about the suspension/removal of content by other political leaders. 8/15

Sec. 7 -- We invite public comments to give interested stakeholders the opportunity to provide input for all cases. We received almost 10,000 comments, which far exceeds all other comments in all other cases combined! Here's the link to them: https://www.oversightboard.com/sr/decision/2021/001/public-comments 9/15

The public comments captured a wide array of views and raised many substantive issues. And the Board listened -- they cited to the public comments during their deliberations and were inspired by (some of) them. Thankfully, they weren't as abusive as you might assume ;) 10/15

I don't have a lot to say about Sec. 8.1/8.2 but others may. Sec. 8.3 is really important though. FB has committed to the UNGPs on Business and Human Rights -- a voluntary framework for private companies -- and thus must respect int'l human rights wherever it operates. 11/15

Int'l law allows for expression to be limited only when such restrictions are: (1) clear and accessible; (2) designed for a legitimate aim; AND (3) necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm. The Board uses this three-part test to analyze Facebook’s actions. 12/15

There are commonalities between int'l law and US law. 1st Amendment principles "also insist that restrictions on freedom of speech imposed through state action may not be vague, must be for important governmental reasons and must be narrowly tailored to the risk of harm." 13/15

But the 1st Amendment only constrains state (i.e. gov't) action in the U.S. FB is a private company and operates beyond the U.S. The @OversightBoard reviews global cases and needs a globally consistent and applicable set of standards (which US law cannot offer). 14/15

Sec. 8.3.1 explains the problem with indefinite suspensions -- they are not described in the Community Standards and not clear what would trigger this penalty or how/when it would be removed. FB provided no information of other indefinite suspensions in any other cases...15/25

This penalty is novel and smacks of political expediency. Contrast it, for example, with the month-long freeze of Venezuelan President Maduro's account on March 26, 2021 )(which was clearly contemplated under FB's rules). 16/25

Check out Sec. 8.3.III for the @OversightBoard's analysis of how Mr. Trump created, "a serious risk of inciting discrimination, violence, or other lawless action" according to the six factors from the Rabat Plan of Action. It's concise and convincing. 17/25

We're finally at Sec. 9, the binding decision. Here it is: The OSB upholds FB's decision to suspend Mr. Trump given his serious violations of its Community Standards and the ongoing risk of violence. It's pretty clear cut...18/25

Further, FB must reexamine and decide the appropriate penalty based on the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm while being consistent with its rules for severe violations (w/in 6 months). No more pulling expedient penalties out of the ether...19/25

Here's an interesting part, If FB determines that Mr. Trump’s accounts should be restored, FB "should apply its rules to that decision, including any modifications made pursuant to the policy recommendations" in Sec. 10. But what modifications are we talking about? 20/25

Sec. 10 (policy advisory statement) covers a lot of ground and suggests an array of non-binding improvements to how FB handles speech by political leaders globally. One that stands out -- FB "must resist pressure from governments to silence their political opposition." 21/25

Sec. 10 also recommends that when FB "imposes a time-limited suspension on an influential user's account to reduce the risk of significant harm," it should not reinstate the account until the risk has abated. 22/25

In other words, there should be a forward-looking harm assessment (that complies with int'l law) to ensure no political leader is automatically reinstated who poses a serious risk. A minority (see Sec. 9) believes this should have been in the binding part of the decision. 23/25

But the majority preferred instead to make it non-binding. Thus, if FB chooses to give Mr. Trump a time-limited suspension (instead of a permanent ban) AND adopts the policy recommendation, Mr. Trump would not be reinstated until and unless he ceases to pose a serious risk. 24/25

What happens now? Beyond complying with the binding decision, @Facebook will need to consider the policy recommendations, respond to each of them, and if adopted, apply them equally to political leaders worldwide. ...25/25