Following the decisions of numerous social networks to block the accounts of US president Donald Trump, questions are being raised about the power of such platforms.
The news broke on Friday 8 January. The social network Twitter decided to suspend the account of United States president Donald Trump. And to do so "permanently". A decision justified by the claim that the American billionaire had "once again incited violence". With particular reference to what happened at the Capitol, where Congress was stormed by thousands of rioters summoned by the US leader himself.
"After reviewing the content of the recent tweets posted from the @realDonaldTrump account, and in light of the current context, we have decided to suspend the account to limit the risks," the statement reads. Trump responded immediately, using the presidential account @POTUS: "Twitter has gone even further in stifling freedom of expression. Tonight, its employees coordinated with the Democrats and the radical left to delete the account. To silence me and you, the 75 million who voted for me."
An act of retaliation, then, according to the outgoing president. Yet accusations have rained down on him not only from social networks, but also and above all from institutions. His vice president Mike Pence effectively abandoned him, condemning what happened at the Capitol and stating that he will attend the inauguration ceremony of the new president Joe Biden (while Trump has announced he will not attend). And the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, made it known that the possibility of a new impeachment proceeding against Trump is under consideration, precisely because of his ambiguous behaviour regarding the demonstrations that turned violent in Washington.
But beyond the episode itself, what is emerging is a lively debate on the role and power of social networks. These platforms have shown, in practice, that they have the ability to prevent someone from expressing themselves. Even a sitting president. And they do so not on the basis of state laws, or at least not solely by reference to them: they do so on the basis of rules they have drawn up themselves. In complete autonomy. The question being asked is therefore: does such "self-governance" on the part of these platforms sit comfortably with the need to guarantee freedom of expression (albeit limited by law and punishable by the competent authorities), as invoked by the US president himself? Is it possible to leave so much power over something as critically important as information in the hands of private companies?
It should be noted that actions similar to Twitter's have in fact been taken by numerous other social networks. Starting with the temporary suspension decided by Facebook. But then YouTube too updated its rules on videos containing "disinformation". In particular, videos claiming that the US elections were rigged can now receive a strike directly — meaning the channel is blocked for one week. After three strikes, the account is deleted.
Furthermore, TikTok announced the removal of numerous videos of Donald Trump's speeches, as well as a ban on certain hashtags, such as #patriotparty, used in support of the outgoing president. Even stricter was Snapchat's position, which blocked the account of the American billionaire, exactly as the live video service Twitch had done. Even Canadian company Shopify, which provided marketing systems for Donald Trump's electoral campaign, decided to close Trump's account.
Decisions that have divided American society even further. On one side, those who support the restrictions; on the other, those who point out that these are private companies censoring the head of state of a democratic nation. Firmly in the first camp is Michelle Obama, wife of former Democratic president Barack: "It is time for Silicon Valley to permanently ban this man and implement policies to prevent world leaders from using their platforms to incite insurrection."
There are also those who accuse the "networks" of having allowed extremist rhetoric to spread unchecked over the past four years, and of changing course only now that Trump is about to leave the White House. Taking the opposite view is lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who (also on Twitter) asked: "Who will be silenced next?" Meanwhile Trump's former campaign manager, Brad Parscale, posed the following questions: "Will electricity providers cut his power from now on? Will they cut off his water too? Will they leave him his cable TV?" Even harsher was conspiracy lawyer Sydney Powell, who spoke of "fascism" (he too has been expelled from Twitter).
It should be noted, however, that criticism of the social networks' decision is not confined to Trump's supporters. Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador criticised on Friday 8 January the "omnipotence and arrogance" of Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook), asking: "What will become of freedom and the right to information? And what is the role of legally and legitimately constituted authorities?"
The whistleblower Edward Snowden, certainly no supporter of Trump, also commented on the matter. The day before Twitter's decision, he had written, in response to the suspension ordered by Facebook: "I know many will see this as a relief, but think for a moment about the world that will exist after these 13 days." The reference is to the time Trump will remain in office before Biden's official arrival. During Biden's presidency, the question of "democratic oversight" over all media will inevitably be on the agenda.
