Trump vs. Twitter. Who Failed What?

by Laura Lai/ Comment

On January 7^th, 2021 the online social media platform Twitter announced that the account of the U.S. President Donald Trump was suspended. It was permanently suspended. The President’s over 88 million followers were also provided a reason for this decision: ‘instigation to violence’ – in reference to the riot on the Capitol in Washington D.C. This decision of the CEO of Twitter divided the public opinion into two: On the one side, those jubilating; and on the other side, those wondering if it is right for a CEO of a private company to close a president account. Or whether or not this action is censorship – both legitimate questions. 

Looking back, it is evident that the conflict between the president and the online platforms in general and Twitter, in particular, is longer – the account closure being the climax of this conflict. The conflict raised relevant issues regarding the professionalism of journalists (1), the objectivity of the journalists (2), and the confusing status of social media (3). Trust in the media decreased in the United States from 68 percent in 1972 (when Gallup first started to monitor it) to 41 percent in September 2019 (4). In May 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting Tool – an instrument to allow American citizens to report censorship online. Over 16,000 complaints were registered (5). The question here is whether or not they were all majoritarian Republican censorship complaints, because Jim Hanson (President of Security Studies Group who served in US Army Special Forces) said:

‘… Twitter has selectively targeted conservatives – most recently President Trump this week – and has either taken down their tweets or labeled them as misleading and added a fact check, as was the case with two of the president’s tweets dealing with problems with mail-in voting.’ (6)

And at his turn, he raises two other legitimate questions: ‘Will Twitter now fact-check every tweet by former Vice President Joe Biden and every Democratic elected official in the nation? Will it fact-check every tweet critical of President Trump?’ 

On January 7^th 2021, a group of rioters – said to be supporters of President Trump, although anybody can use such an opportunity to infiltrate and put the blame on one or the other side – engaged in a violent riot on the Capitol in D.C. Following this unfortunate event five people were killed and the account of the president on Twitter was permanently suspended. Can a CEO of a social media platform do that? asked some voices including some European ones. As a political scientist, not as a lawyer, I can think of two reasons.

            First, it is said that in a democracy there are four powers: executive, legislative, judicial, and the press. Therefore, it was a decision from the head of one power to the head of another. Indeed, the relationship between the press and the other powers is unbalanced without having a system of checks and balances. But can the online platform ‘press’ stand as the fourth power in a democracy? Well… it may not stand for ‘press’ but they stand for some powerful giants described in the Executive Order On Preventing Online Censorship of the Trump Administration as exercising a 'dangerous power. They [large, powerful social media companies] cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.’ This leads to the debatable question of whether social media companies should act as traditional publishers or should continue to benefit from section 230 of the Communication Decency Act that gives online platforms a privilege that traditional publishers do not have:

‘Here’s why that’s a big deal. For decades, social media companies have wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be able to enjoy liability protections that traditional publishers don’t have while censoring opinions they don’t like and promoting those they do.’ (7)

            Second, the online platforms although considered ‘public square’ by the White House in the executive order, are usually somebody’s property. The properties have ‘house rules’ and if a guest does not respect the ‘house rules’ it agreed to when entering the property, they can be invited out by the owner or the administrator. People use Twitter to share views and to share their activities. Donald Trump was using it to share political ideas; I use it for writing: news about books, writing competitions, and courses. People share what they know and what they think in decent terms. Nobody is a president or a king, everybody is a follower.

            But President Trump was raising a great concern on the ‘house rules’ that changed in the meantime, without the client/followers to be aware of, which gives the online platform an advantage to kick out from the property whomever it wishes:

 'Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.’ (8)

According to the American political system, the Head of the American legislative is the same as the Head of the Executive one, meaning the President of the United States of America. He happens to be a successful businessman who can afford any lawyer he wishes. Still, he says that no recourse is possible. Wow! What chances does a simple citizen have then? Therefore, President Trump’s Twitter account is permanently suspended for ‘instigation to violence’ – meaning that he caused the events on the Capitol. This is what ‘instigation’ means. But what exactly did he say? Did he call for people to demolish the Congress building so that Trump Enterprises to build another one? Maybe it is not the time or the place for a joke…

            Anyway, whatever President Trump said must be worse than what a rapist does – or a group of rapists does – when they rape, tape, and put on social media to destroy that child or that woman physically and psychically. Usually, police intervene, and those responsible are held accountable and go to jail, but we never know if their accounts on social media are ‘permanently suspended.'

            Furthermore, whatever President Trump said must be worse than what any terrorist did. It is said that some used to post videos on social media about the way to make bombs. At some point, during the long ‘War on Terror’ terrorists were posting the way they killed people – most of them American citizens. And after a public massacre, the press discovers that terrorists planned it all on social media. Were their accounts also ‘permanently suspended’? Maybe they were and I do not know about it. It is said that 500 million tweets are posted a day and that it would be impossible to filter all of them. Is it truly anything still left impossible (like a ‘filter’) in this technological era?

One main question is still left unanswered: Was it or was it not censorship? President Trump was accusing Twitter of ‘selective censorship’ and he was arguing that:

‘Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people…. As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy….Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.’

The concept of ‘censorship’ opposes the concept of the ‘freedom of expression’ – no doubts and no comments about it. Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy – no wonder that it is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And the term ‘censorship’ is defined by the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ as follows:

‘Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good.’

The answer to the question is concentrated in ‘deemed subversive’. Even this ‘deemed subversive’ goes both ways somehow because ‘stolen elections’ through fraud (an accusation from the Republican side to the Democrats) can also be seen as ‘subversive’ to democracy. And the Democrats may consider what the president has done as ‘subversive’. Therefore, what exactly did President Donald Trump say? What were his exact words considered to have caused the riot?

 

To sum up, the conflict between U.S. President Donald Trump and online social media platforms is long – maybe as long as his presidency. It opens up several debatable issues and one question opens up another one. The surprising events in the Capitol were followed by the surprising suspension of the account of the President of the United States on Twitter.

All media, in general, failed to inform us what President Trump said that was considered ‘instigation’ to violence. The riot is presented to have been the cause of the account suspension, but, actually, the antecedent variable is what the president said that caused the riot. And those of us, from the rest of the world, we do not know what he said. Logically, it is what he said, that allegedly caused the riot, that had as consequence the account closure and the opening of the debate on whether or not it was censorship and to what extent a CEO can do that. But whatever he said must be worse than the words and acts of rapists or of terrorists whose accounts we do not know if they are deleted from social media.

            Twitter seems to have failed to stay neutral as an unbiased referee that offers its platform for political ideas and concerns (like fraud concerns) to be let known by each of the competitors in a political competition. Instead, it is accused of doing the political moderator, a public opinion shaper, and a political player. I would rather prefer to see online platforms as watchdogs of freedom of expression and of the free circulation of ideas and opinions as long as they are decently formulated without any violent appeal. I am not an expert, but I know that man was on the moon and it is going again. Therefore, I refuse to believe that humankind stumbles upon a filter that cannot be applicable to democrats and republicans alike, to presidents and terrorists alike.

            Whether President Donald Trump failed the presidency or the presidency failed him, history will tell.

I hope my comment will be considered an objective reflection and an unbiased contribution to the current debate on the above two questions. I also hope that my comment will be ‘deemed constructive’ because so was its purpose.