San Francisco (AFP)
Back to square one for Facebook: its supervisory board, supposed to decide the difficult questions of freedom of expression, returned to the company the dilemma embodied by Donald Trump, reviving the larger debate of the self-regulation of networks social.
The Californian group's "supreme court" agreed on the urgency of banning the former head of state on January 7 for encouraging the invasion of Congress by a crowd of his supporters.
The attack left five dead and will remain as a major shock to American democracy.
But it is up to Mark Zuckerberg, the boss, and his teams to determine whether or not they let the politician return to the 70 million voters.
"They thought they could get rid of a bulky problem. But the ball came back to their court," said Sarah Roberts, a professor at the University of California UCLA.
Throughout the American presidential campaign, and long before, the network and its neighbor Twitter were criticized for serving as a megaphone to the former president, quick to downplay the seriousness of the pandemic or to denounce, without proof, of so-called electoral fraud.
Its digital ostracization at the beginning of January sparked a new outcry: for many civil organizations, it was necessary, but too little and too late.
For others, it set a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression.
In fact, the Republican billionaire has gone from nearly 89 million followers on Twitter, 35 million on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram ... to a blog on his site and support accounts on alternative networks.
- "Cowardice" -
"We've seen a bizarre expansion in the role of social media in recent years, especially with a president using it to announce executive decisions," said Sarah Roberts.
"They capitalized on this perception of a public place, but it is also a burden".
Faced with massive manipulation campaigns in the 2016 polls in the United States and the United Kingdom, the persecution of the Rohingya minority in Burma and many other scandals, Facebook has had to react to maintain its credibility with users and advertisers.
The social media giant has multiplied the safeguards: moderation of content, fight against disinformation, political advertising on hiatus, more transparency, and, since December, a supervisory board.
Qualified as independent, but funded by the company, it is made up of 20 international members, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and former political leaders.
"A group of 20 people was not going to solve a problem as vast and deep as that of Facebook and its 3 billion users", laughs Hany Farid, professor at the University of Berkeley.
The creation of the council "was a good publicity stunt, but at the first opportunity to accomplish something they chose cowardice. It does not bode well."
At the end of January, Mark Zuckerberg announced that he wanted less politics and "divisive conversations" on his social network, and more "positive" interactions.
With his director of public affairs, Nick Clegg, he regularly calls for more regulation from governments, in consultation with the platforms.
- "Hands in the air" -
In fact, elected officials took up the matter.
In the United States, they would like to reform "Section 230", a 1996 law that protects internet hosts from lawsuits related to content posted by third parties.
This would include forcing them to better filter content and make them more responsible for the very real consequences of certain online exchanges.
But changing this cornerstone of platforms could have unintended consequences, as it allows sites to intervene at will against troublemakers, including against Donald Trump.
And not all networks have the resources to fund tens of thousands of moderators and sophisticated algorithms.
The change is not for tomorrow anyway, because Congress is very divided, says Sarah Roberts.
"For some, social networks are a den of fascist trolls who abuse the public, and for others, a place of discrimination against conservatives."
In the medium term, Facebook, Twitter and a handful of companies will therefore continue to "take major decisions that affect freedom of expression", note the experts of the powerful association for the defense of civil rights ACLU.
As for Mark Zuckerberg, who has repeated that he does not want to be "the arbiter of truth", he has six months to solve his puzzle.
"He can't just put his hands in the air and pretend everything is going to be okay or wait for a miracle," says the researcher.
© 2021 AFP