Here is the link to CPI’s petition. We encourage you to review and sign it.

Credible concern has been raised over the past several years regarding the bias social media companies display when removing certain kinds of content. The allegation should be familiar by now: companies like Facebook and Twitter routinely suppress content in a manner skewed to favor certain social or political ideologies, often failing to follow their own rules and acting in contradiction to their stated ideals. As someone who has been using social media since its inception, in my experience and observation these claims are generally correct.

On this occasion, Facebook has suppressed an awareness campaign by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, an affiliate of SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments). The organization paid $350 last week to promote a petition centered on due process. Here is a screenshot of the campaign:

Obviously, this is not an extreme ad. It links to a petition which I encourage you to view and sign. The petition advocates that the legal system eschew “investigative approaches which presume the guilt of those accused of sexual assault.

The presumption of believing accusers on their mere say-so is a dangerous approach that any legal system concerned with due process – a cornerstone human right – should avoid. More problematically, in practice the proponents of the “believe accusers” approach do not merely “start” by believing; they continue believing in the accuser’s innocence and the accused’s guilt regardless of the evidence. Unlike the presumption of innocence, their presumption is not provisional. Their goal is to replace a provisional presumption of innocence with a pervasive presumption of guilt where such things as neutral investigators and decision-makers and the right of the accused to meaningfully defend themselves do not exist.

Regardless as to whatever one believes investigatory procedures should be, the ad is not extreme in the least, nor does it fail to comply with any of Facebook’s published advertising policies. And yet, Facebook suppressed it. Here is the screenshot:

Facebook’s notification to CPI that their ad was found to “not comply with Facebook’s advertising policies” and that it will no longer be active.

“After a closer review” of course means “we were happy to take your money first.” Note that while Facebook claims the ad “doesn’t comply with our Advertising Policies,” Facebook does not describe how it fails to comply, leaving CPI with no way of knowing how to make corrections that may be necessary – if any. This process is indistinguishable from Facebook personnel suppressing content because it doesn’t like the message and then refusing to state a justification where none exists to remove a path of remedy.

Facebook’s process should remind us of what we see all the time in due process lawsuits: false claims, selective enforcement, failure to notify the accused of meaningful details of the accusation so they can defend themselves or seek a remedy, and so forth. In other words, it seems like Facebook personnel “started by believing” and regarded evidence as inconsequential.

From an organizational perspective, social media is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, for an organization to be disconnected from social media is to suppress its own voice. On the other hand, we should all be wary not to put too many eggs into one social media basket.

Within the last few weeks, the White House has published a website seeking to gather information on the disingenuous suppression of speech on social media platforms. The first paragraph on that website states as follows:

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

“Unclear” is the operative word here, as it matches this event precisely. Facebook offered no clear explanation of how the ad violated its advertising policies.

CPI’s ad does not feature nudity, profanity, illegal products, malware, or anything else that violates Facebook’s advertising policies. The treatment of a very tame ad for human rights should make it clear Facebook has overreached.