Mark Zuckerberg accused of ‘changing the rules’ to soften Alex Jones Facebook ban

A new report alleges a ban on a controversial figure was watered down at the behest of the Facebook founder, and it may have played a role in the US Capitol riots.

Mark Zuckerberg personally intervened when his company Facebook wanted to ban a notorious spreader of misinformation, opening a gaping loophole that might have facilitated the January 6 US insurrection, according to a report.

Like many of Facebook’s internal secrets this one found its way to the public through Ryan Mac of Buzzfeed News, who reported on Sunday that Mr Zuckerberg altered the rules for far-right provocateur and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his InfoWars channel.

Jones used the InfoWars channel to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories on topics like mass school shootings and the sexuality of frogs, among others.

RELATED: Facebook exec drops big hint on next steps

Photos of Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre victims memorial in 2013. Last year, Mr Jones was ordered to pay $US100,000 for his false claims that the massacre was a hoax. Picture: John Moore/Getty Images/AFP

RELATED: Hot new app’s scary China link

Facebook was shaping up to ban Mr Jones and InfoWars from the platform in 2018, a high-profile ban that at the time marked a turning point in Facebook and other tech platforms moderating certain content.

To be clear, Mr Jones and InfoWars weren’t banned for their spreading of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Four videos across four pages were removed for “for violating our hate speech and bullying policies”, but when Facebook conducted a wider review on other content which users had reported, it took down the offending pages “for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanising language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies,” Facebook said at the time.

According to Buzzfeed, Facebook removed the pages under its policies for “dangerous individuals and organisations”.

Under that policy, the social media platform was also meant to ban any content expressing “praise or support” for the banned individual or organisation, in this case Alex Jones and InfoWars. But that didn’t happen.

“Mark personally didn’t like the punishment, so he changed the rules,” a former policy employee told BuzzFeed.

RELATED: How to get your news without Facebook

Alex Jones in full flight at the desk of his InfoWars program.

RELATED: The rise and fall of Mark Zuckerberg

Instead it was decided Facebook would ban Mr Jones and InfoWars from the platform permanently, but would leave posts from other individuals praising or supporting them up, allowing them to continue spreading the misinformation Mr Jones continued to pump out even without Facebook’s platform.

According to Buzzfeed, multiple teams and experts within Facebook had crafted the policy, and a second former policy employee was left bewildered by the intervention of the site’s founder.

“That was the first time I experienced having to create a new category of policy to fit what Zuckerberg wanted,” the former employee said.

“It’s somewhat demoralising when we have established a policy and it’s gone through rigorous cycles. Like, what the f**k is that for?”

The former employees told Buzzfeed Mr Zuckerberg’s intervention created a ripple effect that delayed Facebook’s removal of right wing militia pages for groups like the Oath Keepers, among those who stormed the US Capitol building on January 6.

Facebook spokesman Andy Stone told Buzzfeed: “Mark called for a more nuanced policy and enforcement strategy.”

RELATED: Controversial Parler site back online

Mark Zuckerberg testifying to Congress in 2018. He’ll appear in front of Congress for the fourth consecutive year next month. Picture: Ron Sachs/CNP

Buzzfeed also reported on internal memos it argued showed the company’s vice president of global public policy Joel Kaplan led a team that “exerted out-size influence while obstructing content moderation decisions, stymieing product rollouts, and intervening on behalf of popular conservative figures who have violated Facebook’s rules”.

Mr Stone said that argument was a “recycling” of the same “warmed over conspiracy theories about the influence of one person at Facebook”, which “doesn’t make them true”.

“Many people feel that Joel Kaplan has too much power over our decisions,” read a widely “upvoted” employee question during a company-wide meeting shortly after Facebook opted not to act on a tweet from then US president Donald Trump that may have incited violence against protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer.

A Facebook post from Donald Trump the company elected not to act on.

“That basically asked whether Joel can be in this role, or can be doing this role, on the basis of the fact that he is a Republican … and I have to say that I find that line of questioning to be very troubling,” Mr Zuckerberg reportedly said.

“If we want to actually do a good job of serving people, (we have to take) into account that there are different views on different things.”

According to Buzzfeed, Mr Kaplan, a former deputy chief of staff under President George W. Bush, clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and supporter of controversial Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was “valued by Zuckerberg for his understanding of GOP policymakers and conservative Americans, who the CEO believed were under-represented by a liberal-leaning leadership team and employee base”.

Originally published as Mark Zuckerberg accused of ‘changing the rules’ to soften Alex Jones Facebook ban