Twitter’s vindication

Blog topic #3, July 27, 2021

Social media gives a voice to any person. It gives a platform to anyone to influence, and in turn, makes anyone an author. But, should social media companies censor or block certain voices? What about voices that are booming, manipulative, divisive — and altogether dangerous?

As owners of their platform, social media companies should have (and do have) influence over what content is published. I do not believe that information as a whole (internet, books, media etc.) should be censored — but rather, that social media companies have the right control content on their platform, within reason. I believe that social media companies not only have a responsibility to do so, but also they have a right to do so in accordance with their terms and conditions.

In an article from the New Yorker titled “The Importance, and Incoherence, of Twitter’s Trump Ban” author Andrew Marantz says, in support of the ban, “Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a private company from enforcing its own policies; if anything, the First Amendment protects a company’s right to do so.”

He continues, “Does censoring a head of state set a dangerous precedent? Yes, it does, but so does allowing a head of state to use a platform’s enormous power, over the course of several years, to dehumanize women, inflame racist paranoia, flirt with nuclear war, and incite armed sedition, often in flagrant violation of the company’s rules.”

These are the very reasons why I laud Twitter for banning Donald Trump from their site indefinitely and Facebook and Instagram for banning him for two years.

The final nail in the coffin for these sites was when Trump incited violence on our nation’s capitol in January by urging his followers — via social media — to descend upon the Capitol steps and take over the government. He put thousands of lives in danger and his behavior was extraordinarily tyrannical and savage. Being banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook and Instagram is hardly punishment — it is an expected and natural response from the companies when responding to such behavior.

A passionate voice amongst the chaos, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), said in a statement, “No private company is obligated to provide a megaphone for a malicious campaign to incite violence. It took blood and glass in the halls of Congress — and a change in the political winds — for the most powerful tech companies in the world to recognize, at the last possible moment, the profound threat of Donald Trump.”

Alternatively, other voices have spoken up against the censorship and ban— and passionately, too.

In an article from Forbes titled “Do Social Media Companies Have The Right To Silence The Masses — And Is This Censoring The Government?” author Peter Suciu quotes Lon Safko, author of ‘The Social Media Bible’, who says, “Any form of censorship, any form, is unacceptable. Social platform such as Facebook, whose primary business is open communication between its over 2.7 billion members, have a moral and legal responsibility to allow those conversations to transpire, organically. All conversations, all sides of that conversation. And, if the viewer disagrees or is offended by that conversation, then it is their right to simply close the window and walk away.”

Safko continues, “Once again, as a purveyor of information that reaches billions of people on a global scale, those social platforms have a moral and legal responsibility to deliver that information clearly, organically, and without political censorship.”

Where Lon is wrong is that we can no longer close a window and walk away — behavior online has been shown to incite violence and spread misinformation with real, lasting impacts. Even more so if it came from a former president.

It is somewhat vindicating to see these large, powerful companies do what they can to take a stand against it.

Social media companies — those that are private companies — have every right to censor content, misinformation and voices they deem dangerous and divisive.

References

Marantz, A., & Wiener, A. (2021, January 15). The importance, AND Incoherence, of Twitter’s trump ban. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-importance-and-incoherence-of-twitters-trump-ban.

Suciu, P. (2021, January 12). Do social media companies have the right to silence the masses — and is this censoring the government? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2021/01/11/do-social-media-companies-have-the-right-to-silence-the-masses--and-is-this-censoring-the-government/?sh=760a643548e2.

Guynn, J. (2021, January 13). President Trump permanently banned from Twitter over risk he could incite violence. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/08/twitter-permanently-bans-president-trump/6603578002/.