【Series Archives】

Facebook once again demonstrated how well-intentioned policies are Series Archivesmeaningless if it refuses to enforce them against President Donald Trump.

On a call with reporters Wednesday, Nick Clegg, Facebook's head of policy and communications, and former deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom, defended the company's decision not to take down Trump's posts and ads questioning the legality and legitimacy of voting by mail.

Clegg's defense rested on both a technicality, and some misleading "bothsidesism,” saying Trump’s comments were part of “a longstanding debate about the integrity and viability of different forms of voting.”

Clegg categorized Trump's statements as a form of valid debate about voting by mail between political entities. Because Trump was not directly speaking to voters — instead commenting on the actions of state governments — and not explicitly discouraging people from voting, Clegg said he did not violate Facebook's policies against voter suppression and voting misinformation.

In May, Trump made several claims on social media (including Facebook and Twitter) that questioned the validity of mail-in voting. The issue of voting by mail has come to the fore because states are considering expanding absentee voting programs in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

In the first such post, Trump claimed that Michigan's specific vote-by-mail efforts were done "illegally." In the second, he claimed that absentee ballots would lead to a "rigged election."

In fact, experts and fact-checkers say there is no evidence that voting by mail leads to fraud, and Michigan state officials said that Michigan's secretary of state's actions were, um, not illegal.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Trump posted the statements on both Facebook and Twitter. Twitter ended up fact-checking the statement that voting by mail would lead to voter fraud by appending a "Get the facts" label to the tweet. That label linked to content that contradicted Trump's unsubstantiated claims.

Despite the fact that Facebook has specific policies prohibiting spreading misinformation about voting, and says it takes down posts that amount to voter suppression, Facebook made no such check on Trump content. Until today, the company has been mum on its reasoning. But Clegg shed light on the decision when asked by a reporter why Trump's posts did not violate the company's voter misinformation policies, which it had touted on the call just moments earlier.

Clegg at first rambled about how Facebook continuously evaluates its policies, but eventually hit his stride.

He explained that because Trump appeared to be speaking to politicians and commenting on policy, it did not amount to voter suppression. Never mind the fact that in neither post does he directly address a politician. Or, you know, that anyone can read Trump's social media posts regardless of whom he's directly addressing.

"We draw a clear distinction between attempts to directly intimidate or discourage voters themselves," Clegg said. "The posts as you will know were directed as states authorities and were making those claims about the status of mail in voting."

Clegg's second explanation characterized the validity of mail-in ballots as a "longstanding debate." That defense is actually a form of misinformation itself called "bothsidesism." The way news platforms have covered issues like climate change is a typical example of bothsidesism: platforms give equal space to conflicting "opinions" when one is a fact, and the other is self-interested nonsense. Characterizing a fact and an attempt to cast doubt on that fact as two equal sides of a debate undermines the truth, which is often done for political or economic reasons.

"That debate between politicians on the status of mail voting is something that we do not intervene in and haven’t, because we suspect that debate will continue," Clegg said.

In this textbook case of bothsidesism, there is no evidence that absentee voting leads to voter fraud. Mail-in voting has actually been policy across the country — particularly important for members of the military — since the Civil War.

Voter suppression can take many insidious forms, and goes far beyond physically preventing people from casting their votes at the ballot box. One widely identified voter suppression strategy is undermining confidence in the electoral process itself — which appears to be what Trump is doing in his tweets. If people don't believe in the validity of voting to make their voices heard, then they won't show up to the polls. High voter turnout tends to favor democrats, and you can bet this is exactly what Trump is banking on.

Facebook's decision comes after its continued defense of letting politicians (and Trump) lie in political ads, so the company's decision not to fact-check Trump is not exactly surprising.

Facebook initiated its call with reporters Wednesday to shine a light on the work it's doing to protect the integrity of the 2020 election, which includes a new voter information center and get out the vote efforts. Facebook can make all the policies and info centers it wants. But if it continues to allow the commander in chief to flout those policies, users must ask themselves, what is the damn point.