Social networks and opinions: an insidious precedent from the blocking of Trump’s accounts

Following the events of January 6 at the United States Capitol, Facebook and Twitter have suspended the accounts of Donald Trump. These actions could potentially reopen the door to Big Tech regulation issues and discussions on the potential limitations of free speech on social media platforms.

Social networks like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat proved their important role in regulating free speech when they blocked Trump’s accounts. Google and Apple also implicated themselves in these issues when they excluded Parler, a social media platform that welcomes extremist US-right circles, from their online stores. While some argue that these actions are censorship against unpopular ideas, others defend the restrictions based on their rights as a private company and the potential threat the Trumpian narrative poses to the community.

Overall, caution must be taken when entering the field of limiting a political leader’s free speech.

Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg implicated themselves in the question of who is responsible for determining the admissibility of a public opinion when they chose to block Trump’s accounts.

Do Big Tech companies have the right to make those decisions?

In the past, social media platforms have been marketed as a place for public figures to defend themselves against fake news and hate speech, so a question arises whether social network companies claiming editorial responsibility means owners must adhere to traditional media rules.

As Joe Biden’s administration comes to power, regulating social media and Big Tech oligopolies may be high on the agenda. It seems clear that letting Silicon Valley CEOs regulate themselves is not the best option, and these questions of who decides the limitations of free speech are too important to put off for later debate.