CNN’s Jim Acosta Grills Director of Facebook Oversight Board: ‘You Are Saying The Same Thing Over and Over Again’

CNN Newsroom’s Jim Acosta was visibly frustrated Sunday as he attempted to get an answer from Thomas Hughes, the Director  of the Facebook Oversight Board Administration, regarding their decision to continue former President Donald Trump’s suspension from Facebook and whether they would be responsible if they allowed him back on the platform and he did something to incite violence again, asking variations of the same question five times.

This week, the Facebook Oversight Board announced that they had upheld the social media company’s decision to ban Trump from posting on both Facebook and Instagram after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. They also said that Facebook could not just impose the suspension indefinitely, and must review the penalty within six months.

Trump was also banned from Twitter in the aftermath of the Capitol riot, and Twitter CFO Ned Segal said there would be “no changes” in Trump’s status there, no matter what Facebook decided.

Acosta kicked off the discussion by asking Hughes if they had “punted” on the decision, noting that some critics viewed it as a “quasi decision.”

“No,” Hughes disagreed. “The board didn’t punt this issue at all,” calling it a “clear and strong decision.”

Trump’s suspension, Hughes explained, “was necessary to keep people safe,” because his Jan. 6 posts “were encouraging and legitimatizing violence, and therefore were a severe violation.”

However, he continued, Facebook must have rules that are “clear, consistent, and transparent,” and an indefinite suspension was “not consistent with national human rights standards” and would “have a chilling effect long term on the freedom of expression.”

Acosta sought clarification. “By ordering this review, is the board saying they don’t think Trump should be suspended indefinitely, if only because there was nothing in Facebook’s rule book about this? Is that what you are saying?”

“No,” Hughes replied. “What the board is saying is that Facebook must devise rules and that in its rule book already it has the ability to have a permanent suspension or time-bound suspension, but not an indefinite suspension.”

“An indefinite suspension can have a chilling effect around free expression issues,” Hughes repeated.

“Insurrection can have a chilling effect on democracy,” Acosta interjected. “There is that issue…You are not just talking about regulating any Tom, Dick or Harry out there. You are talking about somebody who incited an insurrection.”

The board had “clearly noted the severity of [Trump’s] violation,” Hughes said, and also made a set of “future-looking recommendations” that would apply to political leaders and other influential users so that they would not have “any greater freedom of expression rights than any other user.”

“Let’s say Facebook reinstates Trump’s account — do you believe the social network would be responsible if his rhetoric led to more social violence?” Acosta asked.

“Essentially, Facebook has to take responsibility for the actions, and the penalties that it lays out for different violations of its community standards,” Hughes replied. “And what the board is saying to that Facebook is that it needs more clarity and consistency in doing that. And at the moment it is failing in that regard.”

“The board — if you gave Trump the green light to be back on Facebook, wouldn’t you be responsible if he goes about lying about the election again and incites more violence in this country?” Acosta tried his question again. “Wouldn’t you, sir, be partly responsible for that?”

Hughes stuck to his talking points, and Acosta made a third attempt:

This is not just anybody. This is somebody who incited an insurrection. This is somebody who is still lying about the election. He just did it this past week…There are people out there who believe these lies and may be attempted to carry out acts of violence again.

So, if the board gives him the green light to get back on Facebook and Facebook goes along with that, what I am asking you, sir, is would that make Facebook, and the board, and you in particular, sir, responsible if Trump’s rhetoric leads to more violence in this country? I know you’re in London, but you have to appreciate, this may feel a little bit different here on the other side of the Atlantic.

“Of course,” replied Hughes, still not answering the question. “The board has made a clear set of recommendations looking forward, which are to apply quite a detailed test that actually take into consideration the potential for harm. They are looking at issues like incitement to discrimination or violence or lawless action.”

“I understand that,” said Acosta, and then asked for the fourth time, urging Hughes to actually answer it as a yes or no question.

“Would Facebook be responsible if Trump gets back on the platform, lies again, continues to incite people, and there is violence because of that rhetoric — just a yes or no. Would Facebook be responsible? You and the board, be responsible?”

“Facebook has to live up to its responsibility,” replied Hughes, describing those responsibilities as “assessing the potential harm.”

Fifth time was not the charm for Acosta, who noted that it was late in London, where Hughes was, and apologized for cutting him off. “But you are not answering the question as to whether Facebook and the oversight board would be responsible if Trump continues to lie about the election on that platform, on the Facebook platform, and people carry out violence and people are injured or killed as a result of that. Wouldn’t Facebook, wouldn’t the board be, in part, responsible for letting him back on?”

“It’s just a yes or no,” Acosta implored. “And you could say yes. You can say no. What do you think?”

Hughes filibustered once again, describing the “certain role” and “function” the board and Facebook had to make sure the rules were “consistently applied in a clear and transparent process.”

“You are saying the same thing over and over again,” Acosta threw in the towel. “I have to take it from what you are responding to this question with, that Facebook and the oversight board would not be responsible if Trump were to continue to lie about the election and there were to be more violence. I don’t mean to cut you off but I have asked you that question three or four times and you haven’t answered the question yes or no.”

“We have to leave it there,” Acosta concluded. “Thomas Hughes, thanks for your time. We appreciate it.”

Watch the video above, via CNN