FACEBOOK BAN OF PRESIDENT TRUMP STAYS: NOT SURPRISED WITH THE RULING.

ICHEOKU says did not expect otherwise as the ban of President Donald John Trump on Facebook was woke culture driven and not necessarily because the president did anything wrong to warrant it. The alleged January 6th speech incitement of the Capitol riot has since turned out to be a fable, yet that was what they based their initial decision to ban him. So where is still the justification to keep him banned, one might ask? But the extreme far leftist liberals, snowflakes, largely homosexual crowd that constitute a large swathe of Facebook workforce wanted him permanently silenced on Facebook and they are succeeding in executing it. 

This people have been at war with President Donald John Trump since his 2016 jaw dropping presidential victory and they were part of the anti Trump forces that eventually forced him out of the White House in 2020. They want to dwindle his influence and effectiveness; and to silence him or at least drastically curb his social media's larger than life presence. They want him gone and he will stay gone. 

ICHEOKU predicts that after whatever review Mark Zuckerberg will be conducting as recommended by the committee, that the final decision will still remain that Trump stays banned from the platform. All Facebook has been doing thus far with their "oversight" committee is to find a veneer for their meritless action. But now that the speech police has released its final report, urging Facebook to take up the gauntlet and make the right final call, lets see what other trick that is left up Mark Zuckerberg's sleeve.

In their ban of the president following the January 6th Capitol melee, Facebook had said that they believe the risks involved in allowing the President to continue on their platform during this period were simply too great. But following the January 20th hitch free installation of Joe Biden, one had expected Facebook to immediately lift the suspension since the supposed "risks" have dissipated. But no, instead, they passed the buck to an "oversight" committee to "review" the decision to continuously keep the President on their "do not fly" list or rather do not participate on their platform list. 

How independent this "oversight" committee really is and whether they could afford to defy the wishes of Mark Zuckerberg is now clear as they simply rubber stamped his decision to keep President Trump off their wall and then, passed the final decision on the duration of his ban back to Mark Zuckerberg. Who is fooling who with this back and forth game which Mark Zuckerberg is playing, ICHEOKU might ask?

The "oversight: committee knows exactly what was expected of them and they understood as a matter of fact that none of them dare not go against Facebook Emperor Mark Zuckerberg's decision and they dutifully complied to it like very obedient underlings. What stopped them from giving a definitive time period during which the suspension or ban would lapse? What stopped them from even ruling that since the "risks" associated with the January 6th Capitol mayhem has abated that there was no longer a need to continue to keep the President off Facebook? But no, they rubber stamped the already in place ban and then passed the final decision as to any review of its duration back to Mark Zuckerberg. 

Why Mark Zuckerberg thought that American people are too dump to understand the game he is playing with his Facebook is simply beyond ICHEOKU. He would have on his own summarily did what Twitter Jack Dorsey did, just permanently ban the president and damn the consequences. But no, he is a very weak person who has a personality problem, sort of a personality inferiority complex disorder and is looking for some committee to take the responsibility of the pronouncement. He is over compensating for his psyche disequilibrium by excessively wielding powers over people and what they are allowed to say or not say on his Facebook; people he never in his widest imagination and dream ever thought he will mingle in their circles talkless of lording it over them. 

ICHEOKU says the "oversight" committee could have saved everybody the trouble of waiting for this long for their "decision" by timely announcing six months ago their endorsement of the already in effect decision to keep the President off their platform. Why the needless delay only to eventually announce the same outcome which nearly everyone knew was coming down the pike. If the committee knew that the indefinite suspension was not appropriate, why did they not draw a timeline themselves and put it within a clearly definitive time period since their decision is supposed to be final and beyond the review of Mark Zuckerberg. Why did they have to still defer to Mark Zuckerberg since they are supposedly the final arbiter or the Facebook Supreme Court on matters concerning grievances against Facebook and their decisions to keep some users out of their platform. 

It reeks of corruption and it is the same thing which applies in every sphere of our lives, where only the "good fellas" are allowed within so many circles. Everyone is bound by unquestioned loyalty to the paymaster who must be continuously pleased in order to keep the paycheck coming. How many conservatives and truly independent persons are members of the committee? Why did they insist that Mark Zuckerberg has the final say on whether the ban of Trump was a justifiable response that is consistent with the rules which applied to every other users of the platform. ICHEOKU says why did Mark Zuckerberg even bother appointing a supreme oversight committee if it cannot make final decisions over matters concerning Facebook arbitrariness with users and Mark Zuckerberg is still in charge of making the final decision and has said that he will consider the committee's decision and determine an action that is clear and proportionate; but in the meantime that the President's accounts remain suspended. 

What exactly is a Facebook's "community standards" and which people constitute the membership of this "community" whose "standards" must not be crossed. For the committee to still conclude that the President "severely violated" the community standards of Facebook on January 6th despite incontrovertible evidence which showed that his Save America Speech did not incite the Capitol disturbance is to say the least simply idiotic. Their "severely violated" phraseology reminds ICHEOKU of Mitt Romney's "acute conservative" qualifying credential. 

What a pathetic group of people who cannot rise above their pettiness and need to be personally worshipped who are now wielding their newly acquired social media power so arbitrarily. A pitiful people who somersaulted from the original charge that the President's speech caused the riot to now that he wrote glowingly of the rioters post riot, as the new reason for banning him. Meanwhile no democrat was banned for their support of Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA when they were destroying American cities last summer. The committee found that Facebook makes up its rules as it goes, yet they failed to end such arbitrariness by definitively ruling the ban meritless and deserving to be upturned. 

Anyway, ICHEOKU says agrees with President Donald John Trump that free speech is at stake here and that the radical far left lunatics who are controlling social media are using their very peculiar standard to decide what is good for everybody and what people must abide to, on the penalty of being canceled. Their problem is that they are not properly equipped for any battle of ideas and want only their version of peculiar truth to prevail, but are deathly afraid of the real truth coming out. If the mainstream media and the four big television networks had stood in the way of social media when they started, just as social media is presently standing in the way of free speech, may be there will be no social media today. But they benefitted heavily from the open culture enterprise in America but are now asphyxiating free speech. The conservative right side of America as well as the Republican Party must stop their whining about the left dominated social media and find a way to create comparable alternative platforms to compete and fill the yawning space for conservative viewpoints. It is sad.