QUESTION NOW.
>> JAKE LIVE OUT THERE IN
FACEBOOK HEADQUARTERS, THANK
YOU.
I WANT TO BRING IN THOMAS HUES
FOR HIS FIRST TELEVISION
INTERVIEW.
I THINK WE HAVE YOU, GOOD
MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
WITH US.
>> GOOD MORNING, PLEASURE TO
JOIN YOU.
>> DECISION IS VERY CLEAR IN SO
FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THE SUSPENSION OF
FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NECESSARY TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE.
NECESSARY TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE.
AND THAT THE OPTIONS SPOKE ON
WHAT THEY DETERMINED A SEVERE
VIOLATION.
THE BOARD ALSO SAID AN
INDEFINITE US SPENGS,SUSPENSION
CONTRARY TO WHAT SHOULD BE CLEAR
AND CONSISTENT LAWS, AND THAT IT
IMPEDES AND AFFECTS FREEDOM OF
EXPRESS RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD.
SO STRESSING THE FACT THAT IT IS
WITHIN SIX MONTHS RATHER THAN
AFTER SIX MONTHS.
AND IT NEEDS TO COME BACK AND
IMPOSE A NEW PENALTY CONSISTENT
WITH ITS OWN RULES.
AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THE
ABORT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS
DECISION REALLY SAFEGUARDS
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, RIGHT?
IT REJECTS THE ARBITRARY RULES
THAT COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON
FREEDOM OF EXPRESS, AND YOU KNOW
FACEBOOK MUST MAKE ITS RULES ON
THINGS LIKE ACCOUNT SUSPENSIONS
AND DECISIONS, TO MAKE THOSE
RULES CONSISTENT AND
TRANSPARENT.
AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, THE
BOARD IS ALSO RECOGNIZING THE
IMPORTANCE OF PRODUCTION OF
POLITICAL RIGHTS. THERE IS USERS IN THAT SPEECH
THERE IS USERS IN THAT SPEECH
WHERE THERE IS A RISK, AND THEY
ARE SAYING THAT FACEBOOK IS
SEEKING TO AVOINT
RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT IS THE
LINE FROM THE DECISION.
DO YOU THINK THEY MISHANDLED THIS INITIAL BAN?
THIS INITIAL BAN?
>> THEY DID NOT HANDLE THE CASE
IN A WAY THAT IS CLEAR AND
CONSISTENT.
THEYRE SAYING YOU NEED TO GO
BACK, BE CONSISTENT, AND APPLY A
PENALTY THAT EXISTS IN THOSE AS
YOU HAVE AS YOUR STATED PENALTIES.
THEYRE ALSO MAKING CLARE SAY
THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR AN
ONLINE POSTING THAT THEIR SPEED
COULD EFFECT, YOU KNOW,
INDIVIDUALS THROUGH INCITING
VIOLENCE.
OR DISCRIMINATION OR LAW LESS
ACTION, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A
HARMS TEST OR ASSESSMENTS BEFORE
THEY ARE REINSTATED, OR IN VERY
SEVERE CASES, IT IS LIKT FOR
SOME INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE THEIR
ACCOUNTANTS DELATED.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE WASTED ON WHAT
YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE SEVERAL
MONTHS HERE, DO YOU THINK IT IS
A PARTISAN ORGANIZATION AT ITS
CORE?
>> I THINK BY APPLYING THE RULES
THAT THE BOARD HAS SUGGESTED, BY
TAKING ON BOARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND MAKING SURE
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND MAKING SURE
THEY ARE FUNCTIONING IN A TRANS
TRANSPARENT MANNER, I THINK THAT
WOULD GREATLY HELP, I CANT SAY
IF THEY ARE OR THEY ARENT.
WE DONT HAVE INSIGHT INTO THAT DECISION MAKING.
DECISION MAKING.
THERE NEEDS TO BE GREATER
TRANSPARENCY.
>> THEY SAID IT WAS APPROPRIATE IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTER MATH OF
IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTER MATH OF
WHAT HAPPENED, BUT THEY WERE
TALKING ABOUT THINGS HE SAID
ABOUT LOOTING AND THINGS LIKE
THAT.
THEY LOOKED AT ONLY THE RIOT
RELATED POSTS. WHY DID THE BOARD RESTRICT
WHY DID THE BOARD RESTRICT
ITSELF TO JUST THAT?
SO THEY LOOK AT THE WIDER
ACTIONS.
THE DECISION ITSELF FOCUSS
SPECIFICALLY ON THOSE POSTS ON
THE 6th AND 7th OF JANUARY.
OTHERS THOUGHT IT WAS RELEVANT
TO LOOK AT COMMUNITY STANDARDS
TO LOOK AT FORMER PRESIDENT
TRUMPS ONLINE HISTORY. BUT IN THE SPECIFIC CASE THAT
BUT IN THE SPECIFIC CASE THAT
THE BOARD WAS GIVEN THE DECISION
WAS ENOUGH FOR A FIRM DECISION.
>> IS THIS AN INSTANCE WHERE
MOST OF THE BOARD CAME TO A
BROAD CONSENSUS SERLEARLY ON?
OR WAS THIS CONTENTIOUS ALL OF
THE WAY THROUGH.
GIVE US INSIGHT INTO THAT.
>> AS NOTED THE DECISION ITSELF
IS CONTENTIOUS.
YOU CAN SEE AND I WOULD
ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO READ IT IN
DETAIL.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT CONSENSUS
LAY AND AS YOU POINTED OUT YOU
CAN SEE WHERE MINORITY OPINIONS
WERE AND YOU CAN GET A FIELD
THAT THERE WAS A BROAD SPECTRUM
OF OPINION ON THE BOARD, AND THE
BOARD ITSELF HAS A LOT OF
OPINIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
GLOBALLY AND FROM THE UNITED
STATES.
AND THOSE ARE ALL REFLECTED IN
THE DELIBERATIONS.
>> GIVEN WE KNOW THE BOARD HAS
BEEN DESCRIBED, AND YOU KNOW
THIS, AS LIKE A SUPREME COURT FOR FACEBOOK.
FOR FACEBOOK.
AS YOU KNOW, THAT TRUST IS PAID
INTO.
AND THERE ARE CRUST TEES THAT
OVERSEE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE TRUST, AND THE BOARD MEMBERS
THEMSELVES ARE INSULATED FROM
THAT AND THEY HAVE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DELIBERATIONS
ON CASES AND CHOOSING AND
VIEFING BOARD MEMBERS AND THAT
IS FUNDED THROUGH THE TRUST THAT
HAS BEEN CREATED.
BUT I THINK MORE, YOU KNOW
MEANINGFULLY THE BOARD MEMBERS
THEMSELVES, WHO THEY ARE, WHAT
THEY SAID IN THE PAST, THE FACT
THAT THEY HAVE MANY OF THEM HELD
FACEBOOK TO ACT, I THINK THAT
REALLY SPEAKS TO THE INDEPENDENT
MAKE THE OF THE BOARD, AND THE
DECISION THATS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, I THINK YOU CAN SEE A VERY
I THINK YOU CAN SEE A VERY
STRONG AND ROBUST FEELINGS
ANDERSON THE RULES AND HOW
THEYRE APPLIED.
>> I KNOW WERE ELEMENT OUT OF
TIME HERE, BUT BEFORE WE GO I
WANT TO ASK YOU IN YOUR PERSONAL
OPINION, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE
FACEBOOK SHOULD DO IN THE NEXT
SIX MONTHS AS IT RELATES TO
FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS
ACCOUNTANT?
ACCOUNT?
>> I THINK LOOKING AT CLOSELY
WHAT THE BOARD IS SAYING.
IT IS SAYING TO FACEBOOK ALWAYS
YOU WERE CORRECT ON THE DAY,
ALTHOUGH IT WAS A SEVERE
VIOLATION, ITS NOT IN
PROPORTION TO AN INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION.
BUT IN THE FUTURE, WHAT KIND OF
TEST SHOULD BE APPLIED AND HOW
USERS SHOULD BE APPLIED, HOW
SHOULD THEIR ACTIONS BE