> It's quite obvious he broke no actual rules, but it's interesting that Facebook's oversight board is actually willing to say so.
Where are you reading that? I see no reference to it in the linked article.
Where are you reading that? I see no reference to it in the linked article.
The Oversight Board said the initial decision to permanently suspend Mr Trump was "indeterminate and standardless", and that the correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".
And the first paragraph says:
Donald Trump's ban from Facebook and Instagram has been upheld by Facebook's Oversight Board.
> correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".
That's the entire focus of the article is a consistent response from Facebook. It makes absolutely no mention of the action that precipitated the response.
Perhaps you're interpreting it differently as: he broke a rule, which happens to only be enforced against people named Donald Trump. Well, most people wouldn't recognize such things as genuine rules, which is probably why the oversight board had such difficulty with it.