Facebook’s Civil Rights Audit Facebook’s Violence and Incitement Community Standard is intended to “remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence.” The policy prohibits “threats that could lead to death” including “calls for highseverity violence,” “statements of intent to commit violence,” and “aspirational or conditional statements to commit high-severity violence.” The policy also prohibits “statements of intent or advocacy or calls to action or aspirational or conditional statements to bring weapons to locations.” In the midst of nationwide protests regarding police violence against the Black community, President Trump posted statements on Facebook and Twitter that: “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” The phrase, “when the looting starts the shooting starts” is not new. A Florida police chief famously used the phrase in the 1960s when faced with civil rights unrest to explain that lethal force had been authorized against alleged looters. In contrast to Twitter, which labeled the post as violating its policy against glorifying violence, Facebook deemed the post non-violating of its policies and left it up. Facebook’s stated rationale was the post served as a warning about impending state action and its Violence and Incitement policy does not prohibit such content relating to “state action.” Facebook asserted that the exception for state action had long predated the Trump posts. Mark Zuckerberg later elaborated in a meeting with employees that although the company understood the “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” phrase referred to excessive policing but that the company did not think it had a “history of being read as a dog whistle for vigilante supporters to take justice into their own hands.” The civil rights community and the Auditors were deeply troubled by Facebook’s decision, believing that it ignores how such statements, especially when made by those in power and targeted toward an identifiable, minority community, condone vigilantism and legitimize violence against that community. Civil rights advocates likewise viewed the decision as ignoring the fact that the “state action” being discussed — shooting people for stealing or looting — would amount to unlawful, extrajudicial capital punishment. In encounters with criminal conduct, police are not authorized to randomly shoot people; they are trained to intercept and arrest, so that individuals can be prosecuted by a court of law to determine their guilt or innocence. Random shooting is not a legitimate state use of force. Facebook articulated that under its policy, threats of state use of force (even lethal force) against people alleged to have committed crimes are permitted. The idea that those in positions of authority could wield that power and use language widely interpreted by the public to be threatening violence against specific groups (thereby legitimizing targeted attacks against them) seemed plainly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Violence and Incitement Policy. Externally, that reading could not be squared with Mark Zuckerberg’s prior assurances that it would take down statements that could lead to “real world violence” even if made by politicians. 54