Today in feckless wussery:

Trump, Bush, and Arianne Zucker
seen here in what should have been
the end of Trump's campaign, but...

Hurray? Like, it's good news. It is, but-huh? What am I? Oh, right, you see I'm talking about Facebook's oversight board which ruled that the company's ban on Donald Trump from its social media platforms should be upheld. Which is great. What's less great is that it also said that the indefinite ban was "inappropriate" and the company should take the next six months and make sure that it was consistent with how it treats other its users. Essentially, this means that that the former star of Home Alone 2 and that Billy Bush tape, might be back on Facebook and Instagram as early as November.

"We are the Board. Your penalties are vague
and standardless. Avoidance is futile." 

In its decision, the Board (their caps, not mine) basically called Facebook a bunch of feckless wusses, trying to avoid accountability. Which, I mean, yeah, that's exactly what they were doing:

"In applying a vague, standardless [sic] penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The Board declines Facebook's request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a denied penalty."

-The Board, not being wrong

Yes. Absolutely. Of course Facebook wants to pawn off any responsibility and bad press on the semi-independent board and its legally binding decisions.

In Speed terms, Facebook wants to be Dennis Hopper using Jeff Daniels
(the independent board), as a human shield against Keanu Reeves's inevitable
right-wing reaction--and apologies to Mr. Reeves, I mean this metaphorically. 

Yes. Worrying about their feelings
is exactly the problem-wait...is...is that
Dennis? Dang. I nailed that callback.

So of course the semi-independent Board is having none of it. Of course they are. And good for them, I suppose. I mean, their point isn't that giving him a platform isn't dangerous, it's that it's not their job to throw themselves on the grenade that is the rabid-foam backlash on the part of the millions of Trump fans who have--in some cases--said they are willing to die to overturn the election. Which I mean, if we're being honest, isn't worrying about these goons and their feelings kind of the problem here?

100% saw this coming the day
he electoral college won the
2016 election. 100% called it.

Like, kicking him off Facebook was the right call and it would have been the right call months or even years earlier and might have avoided a lot of the sturm and drang but the Board is saying that Facebook doesn't have a policy to fit the violation. And why would they? Who would have thought that a sitting President would openly incite violence to keep himself in power? Ok, we all did, but Facebook didn't specifically outline a penalty against the possibility, and I think what that the Board is saying is that they need to figure that out and come up with a policy. That they can't just ban indefinitely. 

"Bo-ring..."

-everyone on Facebook

And I mean, it's an easy solve right? Like, doesn't Facebook's user agreement say that they can change policies whenever they want? Huh? Yeah, I'm asking because I don't know. I never read those things. The point is they're not the government, they're a social media platform and can make up their policies as they go along so why not set a policy that says if an elected official tries to use Facebook to do a coup, they're banned? And, you know, it's not like they need an indefinite ban. 

Why not just ban him for say, twenty years? To be clear, I'm not wishing Donald Trump any physical harm. It is my fervent wish to see him held accountable for all that terrible shit he did and is continuing to do and absolutely will do in the future, but no physical harm. I'd rather see him in prison or in front of The Hague. But if that doesn't happen, just wait him out. I mean, the dude's seventy-four and eats cheeseburgers in bed. 

What? I'm not body-shaming, I'm treason shaming. And I'm not sorry.