Facebook had removed pages belonging to Alex Jones in August 2018, but did not ban the Infowars leader until Thursday. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images technology Facebook wades deeper into censorship debate as it bans 'dangerous' accounts

Facebook on Thursday banned from its flagship social network and its subsidiary Instagram a series of incendiary political figures, including Infowars Chief Alex Jones and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan — a move some critics scoffed at as belated but that free speech advocates warned could raise thorny content moderation issues.

The social media giant has drawn broad criticism from across the political spectrum over its attempts to curb harmful content. Critics on the left have said Facebook and other tech platforms are failing to thwart the spread of hate speech; those on the right argue tech's approach to content-policing stifles free speech and disproportionately targets conservatives. Neither camp appeared quelled by Thursday's move, which the company said was to crack down on violations of its policies against "dangerous individuals" and organizations.


"Facebook just announced they are finally banning Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and other racist conspiracy theorists," tweeted Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower who triggered the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. "Let’s not forget that a mere 10 months ago, they were defending these same people’s right to publish their hateful disinformation and harass Sandy Hook families."

On the other hand, Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, a conservative tech and media watchdog, praised the removal of Farrakhan but bemoaned the company’s other actions. “It's unfortunate that online speech doesn't have enough room for controversial views,” he said in an email.

Morning Tech Technology news from Washington and Silicon Valley — weekday mornings, in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Facebook, along with Twitter and Google's YouTube, has for some time been caught in the crossfire of those wildly diverging positions on how to appropriately operate a global platform. Past attempts to define clear standards have failed to settle the issue, as when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg notoriously said on a podcast last year that he'd allow posts denying the Holocaust as long as the people behind them sincerely believed what they were saying. The company framed Thursday's bans as its latest attempt to slice through a thicket of complex and politically charged issues with basic principles.

“We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.”

In an escalation of its content enforcement actions, the company also booted a small group of fringe right-wing figures, including commentator and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, Infowars contributor Paul Joseph Watson, activist Laura Loomer and Paul Nehlen, the self-described "pro-white" congressional candidate who challenged former House Speaker Paul Ryan for his seat in 2016. All four have been known to spread false information or to engage in racially charged political rhetoric.

Facebook, the largest social network in the world, has long faced pressure to crack down on bad actors disseminating misinformation online. Last year, Jones and his site emerged as a flashpoint for those criticisms, prompting the company to take action.

In August, the company cited violations of community standards in removing pages belonging to Jones and Infowars, notorious for peddling unfounded conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The move came amid a flurry of suspensions and content takedowns for Jones and Infowars, which also were booted from YouTube, Twitter and other platforms.

But Facebook's suspension did not bar Jones and other Infowars organizers from having accounts on the platform, and both Jones and his site remained active on Facebook-owned Instagram — until Thursday.

Advocacy groups, meanwhile, for years have called for Facebook and other social media to enforce their policies on hate speech against Farrakhan, who has a history of spreading anti-Semitic rhetoric online. That too ostensibly came to an end Thursday.

Some frequent Facebook critics offered muted praise for the bans, heavily tempered with caution noting how much more they think must be done. "Platforms need to be much more vigilant about weeding out hate," tweeted Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). "This is a start."

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, whose organization has repeatedly repudiated Farrakhan’s online postings as hateful, called the latest enforcement actions “a long overdue step by Facebook but a move that we welcome.”

“Still, it’s not enough for tech companies to make fighting hate part of their press strategy,” Greenblatt said in a statement. “When Facebook made a similar decision last year, extremists and their supporters were able to circumvent those measures. We will wait and see how Facebook responds to that challenge.”

Facebook’s initial decision to boot the main accounts for Jones and Infowars last year drew a smattering of praise from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, many of whom expressed outrage over his baseless claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.

But the company faced fresh scrutiny after numerous reports detailed how Jones and other Infowars contributors appeared to circumvent the suspension by creating alternative accounts and private groups to disseminate their content. Jones' account on Facebook-owned Instagram, meanwhile, amassed over 300,000 followers. Even on Thursday, Facebook drew criticism for a confusing and staggered rollout of the bans, which saw some of the accounts targeted for deletion remain active for hours after the announcement, giving them ample time to tell followers where else to find them online.

And free speech advocates have warned that the company’s content removals could backfire in unexpected ways.

After Facebook announced earlier this year it was its ban on hate speech to include white nationalist and separatist content, the American Civil Liberties Union cautioned that those steps could also restrict those seeking to combat the spread of harmful content.

"Every time Facebook makes the choice to remove content, a single company is exercising an unchecked power to silence individuals and remove them from what has become an indispensable platform for the speech of billions,” American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Vera Eidelman told POLITICO in March. “When speech is censored by private parties based on the content of that speech, there's nothing stopping Facebook — or YouTube or Twitter — from using that same power to censor organizations fighting to protect abortion rights or individuals fighting against climate change tomorrow.”

