The blog was originally touted as a "rival" for other social media platforms from which Trump had been banned. Since January 27 - one week after Biden was sworn in as president - the Department of Homeland Security has released a series of bulletins through the National Terrorism Advisory System, in which the Secretary of Homeland Security warned of the threat posed by violent extremists who have been inspired and incited by Trump's incessant lying about the 2020 election.
Social platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become indispensable tools for politicians to get their messages out and to raise small-dollar donations. But earlier this week, and after only one month of operating the blog, Trump made a decision to shut it down. It attracted dismal traffic.
Some activists criticised Facebook for even opening the door to reinstating Mr Trump. Others can still read and comment on Trump's past posts, but he and other account handlers are unable to post new material. Twitter has said Trump is banned permanently.
The Board said that the social network should have used its "established account-level penalties" for severe violations instead of an indefinite suspension, which is not included in its content policies. It was clearly Mark Zuckerberg's hope that the board would craft a ruling that could be applied in future instances so that the company didn't have to address the thorny issue of censoring the speech of politicians or public figures, but that is now what they've been forced to do. Facebook has long shied away from involving itself with the accounts of elected officials, even when they post content that breaks its rules.
So, now all public figures have to consider the possibility of losing their Facebook microphone for two years if they do something similarly egregious as telling insurrectionists that they "love" them.
Last month, the board upheld Facebook's decision to suspend Trump, finding he had broken its policies against praising violence, but said the company needed to set clear rules for high-profile users. It gave the company six months to decide what to do with his accounts. The punishment: Back on Facebook just in time for Trump 2024, with no explanation at all as to why a two-year ban, or what the criteria are for determining his status when the ban expires.
We want to hear from you. The board called this arbitrary and rejected Facebook's "request for it to endorse indefinite suspension". "We'll see what their evaluation is a couple of years from now", adding that "it's feels pretty unlikely that the zebra's going to change his stripes over the next two years", referring to the former president.
United Nations rights chief: Israeli strikes on Gaza may be war crimes
The statement said Kamel was delegated by Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi to meet and hold talks with Netanyahu . She said that Hamas' indiscriminate rocketing during the conflict was also a clear violation of the rules of war.
"While many will breathe a sigh of relief today that Facebook has banned Donald Trump for a further two years, this decision only goes to underline the enormous, unchecked power of Facebook and its repeated failure to police its platform", the statement continues.
"It's pretty straightforward. Donald Trump incited an insurrection, and the biggest attack on the Capitol in 150 years that left people dead and injured".
"When we assess content for newsworthiness, we will not treat content posted by politicians any differently from content posted by anyone else", Clegg wrote in the post.
Facebook has come under fire from those who think it should abandon its hands-off approach to political speech, but has also been criticised by those, including Republican lawmakers and some free-expression advocates, who saw the Trump ban as a disturbing act of censorship.
Why? Simply put, the events of January 6 have a long tail.
While Facebook put labels on many of Trump's election posts, he did not face penalties such as suspension for repeatedly and falsely claiming victory in 2020.
The exemption policy had been criticized for giving special treatment to politicians.
"We know that the penalties we choose to apply or not apply are controversial".