Facebook has a decision to make, and it will make it tomorrow: Do you close, forever, the account of the previous president? Or do you re-open it since the fear of violence after January 6, which he caused, is over?
That depends. It depends on whether you believe that (a) his free speech rights are being violated; (b) the aforementioned threat has been removed; and (c) the political fallout, ferocious in either direction, is tolerable.
Let's discuss the three. Are someone's free speech rights being violated if, based on clear and convincing evidence, the speaker incited a riot in the U.S. Capitol, designed to overturn a constitutional process honored every four years since 1800, just because he clearly and officially lost but claims that he won?
Rights in the Bill of Rights are rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by government, not by website. Facebook's obvious popularity has trademarked it in the American mind like Xerox and Campbell's soup--it's become synonymous with social media. Facebook can cancel anyone's status if it wants to; it does not have to justify it other than through its own principles.
If the government had a social media site, that would be another issue. It brings up another case, that of the previous president blocking those he didn't like on his infamous Twitter account. A court said that he couldn't do that because he was (unfortunately) the President, and public scrutiny and discussion must carry on in the most robust way.
So, he might reason, why wouldn't he have the legal right to go back onto Facebook? Because he's no longer the president. Because he's now just like everybody else. Besides, he abused his right by creating innuendoes and lies that inspired others on January 6 (admittedly, in court) to act in his behalf and because it would please him. They weren't just words; they were proddings. If it were otherwise, then politics themselves would be pointless.
But there are other soups, and they're plenty good enough (including low salt, which for people like me have become highly prized). There are other copying machines (like Hewlett-Packard) that work just fine.
Are there other social media sites? Well, yes. None have the staying power or prestige of Facebook, but they're certainly welcome to try.
Does a former president need Facebook to put his views out there? One wouldn't think so. So far, he's managed to do that and have some of those views reported in mainstream media. That makes him better off than me, for instance.
The popularity of Facebook beckons someone like him to take full advantage of it. He certainly has, hasn't he? He's tried to get people to overthrow our government, then slip into the cracks and take it over again. Make no mistake; that's what he tried to do. If it failed, as it did, he could just settle back and make excuses that didn't rub up against him--on the surface. But he was the instigator, and no rational person can look at the evidence and pretend otherwise.
So the answer to (b) would have to be: Yes, that threat ended. BUT--
- way too many people are still addicted to the thinking that the election was stolen (the Big Lie), and might easily respond to further inspiration concocted by the Big Liar;
- Facebook is a major and evident, even if unwitting, purveyor of that conversation; and
- the previous president's return to it would exacerbate and emphasize that Big Lie continuously, having its horribly damaging effects on our well-established (see above) political processes.
So what about (c), then? What about the fallout? Can Facebook absorb whatever results it causes?
I'm guessing it can. The very inertia that allowed the previous president to spew and spread his endless nonsense will continue. There will have to be a significantly well-established alternative site to take people who, angry and frustrated, might jump to. And that will take time and a real sense of purpose.
That begs another question: Can we handle the diminishment of Facebook? Can we end our own addictions to tapping into it, as surely as we take a shower or cross the street? Can we disconnect and be as alone as we've ever been, especially with the fallout from the pandemic still all around us?
If people give up on Facebook, it's usually because Facebook, in point of fact, raises our stress levels as much as it raises our connectivity. It's subtle, but it's there. I would be stunned if Facebook suffers a significant downturn in traffic. Unless, of course, the Big Liar is allowed to return. Then alternatives might be sought.
As for the perpetrator around whom all this revolves, he's enjoying the bother. If he's the subject of removal, he'll clearly respond publicly regardless; he'll continue his insults and drivel if allowed back on; and will gladly continue playing the role of the victim if he's not. So nothing, actually, will change about him, if we ever foolishly anticipated it might.
Which also means that, if he runs for president again (which he can) and gains the nomination, he'll try the same approach--which is to say, he'll plant the seeds of the corruption in deflection to that which he will be attempting, whether in plain sight or not. Policy aside, he's a horrible menace to this country, and the Republican Party should be ashamed of itself in its utter lack of leadership options.
The best way to return any integrity to our electoral system is to exclude this menace. He means nothing more and nothing less than to regain the reins of government to operate behind the scenes for himself and only himself--this time to utilize the weapons he overlooked to eliminate the influence of enemies. If Facebook's rulers haven't figured that out by now, they're either part of his minions or they've been hiding underground for far too long.
We'll see if Facebook becomes the cat's-paw, the avenue for him to return to ignominy which we may still be condemned to share. We'll see what kind of guts they have.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask indoors. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment