Facebook’s Civil Rights Audit of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. . .” On its face, Facebook’s voter interference policy prohibits false misrepresentations regarding the “methods for voting or voter registration” and “what information and/or materials must be provided in order to vote.” The ballots and ballot applications issued in Nevada and Michigan were officially issued and are current, lawful forms of voter registration and participation in those states. In California, ballots are not being issued to “anyone living in the state, no matter who they are.” In fact, in order to obtain a mail-in ballot in California one has to register to vote. Facebook decided that none of the posts violated its policies. Facebook read the Michigan and Nevada posts to be accusations by President Trump that state officials had acted illegally, and that content challenging the legality of officials is allowed under Facebook’s policy. Facebook deemed the California post to be non-violating of its provision for “misrepresentation of methods for voter registration.” Facebook cited that people often use shorthand to describe registered voters (e.g., “Anyone who hasn’t cast their ballot yet, needs to vote today.”). It wasn’t clear to Facebook that the post — which said “anyone living in the state, no matter who they are” would get a ballot when, in fact, only those who registered would get one — was purposefully and explicitly stating “you don’t have to register to get a ballot,” and therefore was determined to be non-violating. The Auditors vehemently expressed their views that these posts were prohibited under Facebook’s policy (a position also expressed by Facebook’s expert voting consultant), but the Auditors were not afforded an opportunity to speak directly to decision-makers until the decisions were already made. To the civil rights community, there was no question that these posts fell squarely within the prohibitions of Facebook’s voter interference policy. Facebook’s constrained reading of its policies was both astounding and deeply troubling for the precedents it seemed to set. The civil rights community identified the posts as false for labeling official ballots and voting methods illegal. They explained that for an authoritative figure like a sitting President to label a ballot issued by a state “illegal” amounted to suppression on a massive scale, as it would reasonably cause recipients of such official ballots to hesitate to use them. Persons seeing the President’s posts would be encouraged to question whether they would be doing something illegal or fraudulent by using the state’s ballots to exercise their right to vote. Civil rights leaders viewed the decision as opening the door to all manners of suppressive assertions that existing voting methods or ballots — the very means through which one votes — are impermissible or unlawful, sowing suppression and confusion among voters. They were alarmed that Facebook had failed to draw any line or distinction between expressing opinions about what voting rules or methods states should (or should not) adopt, and making false factual assertions that officially issued ballots are fraudulent, illegal, or not issued through official channels. Civil rights leaders expressed concern that the decision sent Facebook hurtling down a slippery slope, whereby the facts of how to vote in a given state or what ballots will be accepted in given jurisdiction can be freely misrepresented and obscured by being labeled unlawful or fraudulent. 38