Meta has lifted the final restrictions on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the run up to US presidential elections in November.

The ex-US president and convicted felon’s accounts were suspended in 2021 after he praised supporters who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January.

Trump’s accounts, which combined have over 60 million followers, were re-instated in 2023 but subject to additional monitoring, which has now been removed, the social media giant said in a blog post.

Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.

  • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.

    Meta said fascists should have their voices heard. Zuck’s a coward, what a fucking surprise.

    • mecfs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Trump recently threatened multiple times to jail zuck. I wouldn’t be suprised if that had an impact on this decision.

      • DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Zuck’s a coward, what a fucking surprise.

        E: though tbf it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he’s letting trump back on the platform because he wouldn’t mind him winning. After all, trump is good for billionaires, there’s no question about that…

        • BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          And if he loses, ban him again for saying something malicious and appear to be doing diligence

  • jprice@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    I hope they know they should hide Mark Zuckerberg’s grave, because that thing is going to be so vandalized when he goes. Ill be the first to take a huge messy shit on it.

    • MeatStiq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re assuming this country won’t be blown up before that time. I doubt any of us poors will live to see the day these assholes die. I’ve always wanted to watch trump have an aneurysm while at his Hitler esk rallies. Sadly that probably won’t happen.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        We won’t see it, but at least we will die with other people. They’re going out just like those billionaires on the Titanic sub - alone in a hostile environment, scared, banking stupidly on their own hubris instead of science.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    at this point, the people who STILL support trump are going to vote for him regardless. all this accomplishes is giving him another outlet to spew ridiculous bullshit that demonstrates his idiocy and/or incriminates himself

    • mhague@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      “All I can say is that if I’m elected President, we will pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time,” Trump wrote. “We already know who you are. DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!”

      At the very least, even if Zuck isn’t the best example, it’s worth considering that the further conservatives descend into fascism, the more we’ll see people take the easier option of not resisting.

  • cxg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    A few days after trump threated to arrest zuck after the election? What a surprise

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That makes sense. It’s hard to foment an insurrection or race massacre when most of your loyal soldiers don’t use Truth Social.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sure it is–for profits. If Trump gets reelected, all those pesky government regulations about the environment and securities will be thrown out window.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.

    I hate to say it, but they’re right. They can’t silence one of the two candidates for the presidency.

    • DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Imagine piping up to defend the non-existent “right” of a self declared fascist to spew his lies. 🤯

      Careful not to choke on that boot…

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The fact you think I support Trump or Facebook tells me all I need to know about the quality of the discourse in this thread. No wonder the left can’t get anything done in your shithole of a country.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yes they can. They are a private corporate and can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t target a protected class, and it doesn’t.

      And in particular, they didn’t silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        And in particular, they didn’t silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.

        Has he been convicted of that? We can all wring our hands as much as we want, and god knows I’m not a Trump supporter, but Facebook are not going to embroil themselves into a legal battle over this.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Facebook does not have nearly as high a burden of proof as a court of law.

          Facebook most likely has a far larger budget for their legal team, too. I don’t think they’d be worried about a lawsuit.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            So Facebook is supposed to block the GOP presidential nominee because other people were charged of a crime and he was not? We’d all like that, but come on.

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              no, just cuz he broke their rules… repeatedly… and says violent hateful shit… and spreads misinformation. Trump supporters whine about their bans or posts being removed when they post the vile shit they like to spew. Why does Trump get a pass?

              • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Why does Trump get a pass?

                Because that’s much easier for Facebook than dealing with the clusterfuck that would result if they didn’t.

                • naught@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  So political leaders get a pass to break all the rules? I don’t understand your reasoning. The rules should be applied only to people without power? Facebook should just always take the “easiest” path for moderation?

                  What about leaders elsewhere that explicitly call for violence or perpetrate it? Is there a line somewhere?