[ad_1]
Now that the four-year term of President Trump is coming to an end and the transfer of the executive team is on the most important agenda of American politics, after the highest authority of the United States, Congress, was besieged by the Supporters of President Trump On January 6, the social media giant Twitter announced that Trump is “permanently banned.”
So far, Trump, who has sent more than 36,000 Twitter messages in four years and has 88 million followers, has the microphone turned off on his favorite social platform.
Twitter explained that the reason for Trump’s full and permanent ban is that he “runs the risk of further inciting violence” and violates the Twitter platform’s ban on glorifying violence.
In the immediate aftermath of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube also took steps to ban Trump from speaking on their social platforms; Tech giants Google, Apple, and Amazon pulled their shelves. The Parler app, which is widely used by Trump supporters, stopped providing related network services for Parler.
The Capitol was hit by violence and political turmoil in the United States has been prolonged. At the same time, the ban imposed by the tech giants on Trump has sparked debates about free speech and regulation around the world. BBC Chinese will resolve the three main issues raised in this debate for you.
Do private companies have the right to censor and restrict expression?
Trump’s ban by several of the major US social media platforms and tech companies raises the most direct question: is it correct?
If Trump, as president-elect of the world’s largest country with high authority, can be affirmed by a private enterprise order, how can the freedom of expression of ordinary people be guaranteed?
After Twitter permanently banned Trump, a spokesperson for German Chancellor Merkel said: Twitter’s warning about Trump’s comments was correct, but the entire ban was “problematic.”
Merkel said through spokesperson Steffen Seibert: “Free expression of opinion is an extremely important fundamental right.” Any restriction on freedom of expression must be determined by law, not by private companies. .
There are also other politicians in Germany who agree with Merkel’s concerns, believing that the president of a certain company can block channels for national leaders to speak to thousands of people, which is problematic. They warned that these social networks should not have such powers and that the state should enact the corresponding regulatory laws.
Many heavyweight politicians in France expressed shock over Twitter’s decision. They believe that the management of online platforms is the responsibility of the state and the judiciary. If Trump’s statements threaten American democracy, then Trump’s ban by the internet platform giants also poses a threat to America and democracy.
Among the voices that oppose Twitter, there is also the leader of the Russian opposition Alexei Navalny (Alexei Navalny). He said on Twitter: I think Trump’s ban is an act of censorship and is unacceptable.
Image source,EPA
The Twitter account of the president of the United States, Trump, has 88.7 million followers. After Congress was violently attacked, Twitter permanently blocked his account.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared that there must be an “open and honest dialogue” on the limits of the speech management of social media companies. He said that a debate has started on the status of these companies.
Faced with criticism and doubts from the outside world, Twitter chairman Jack Dorsey responded that banning Trump, while “correct”, is also “very dangerous.”
He said on Twitter: “A company making a business decision for review is different than the government deleting an account, but it basically feels the same.”
Is it social media?
Judging by the statements of politicians in European countries, President Trump’s ban on several of the major social networks in the United States that has spread throughout the world has also brought the unregulated status of these Internet companies to a halt. critical point for many years.
In fact, the intention of the US authorities to include these technology companies in the regulatory system is already foreseen. Both outgoing President Trump and the next Biden have stated that they will review the long-term statutory exemption talisman “Section 230” (Section 230) for technology companies.
In late October 2020, the chairmen of Twitter, Facebook, and Google testified at the US Senate Commerce Committee hearing and accepted inquiries about the control of content on Internet platforms, the responsibilities of users. to post content and whether to review “Section 230”. .
“Section 230” is an article of the 1996 United States Communications Decency Act and is considered a “protective umbrella” to protect freedom of expression and the innovative vitality of the Internet.
Trump Supporters Break into Congress: Photographer’s Frontline Record
This clause stipulates that Internet service providers will not be responsible for the content published by users, they define that they are not “publishers or broadcasters” of information and, at the same time, they give social media platforms the freedom to censor the content posted by users.
However, with the development of the Internet and the widespread use of social media, social media that are not information “posters” actually face significant issues of right and wrong at the content editing level at all times, and it is difficult to evade your moral and social responsibilities to monitor false information.
Conservative MP Nicky Morgan, who served as the UK’s Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sports from 2019 to 2020, told the BBC that Trump’s permanent ban on Twitter is indeed a major event. “It removes the last doubt that social networks are actually publishers (of information), which means that they are responsible for the content published on the channels of their platform. They are not just a platform as they have always argued. Interestingly, this decision was made by Twitter. “
Morgan hopes that after Twitter’s decision, the UK and elsewhere will start promoting social media oversight.
Why regulate social networks?
Another important reason why public opinion, the public and politicians are dissatisfied with Trump’s ban by the giant tech companies that control social media is that these companies waited until Trump was nearing retirement to take measurements.
Australian lawyer and columnist Janet Albrechtsen’s comment in The Australian newspaper called for Twitter and other companies to be considered as publishers of information.
She wrote: “For four years, Twitter and other companies have ignored their inflammatory comments (from Trump) on their platforms. Dealing with the devil has served their own business interests very well and has brought these companies greater power, influence and wealth. Only now does Twitter know that Trump is leaving office and is eager to please the new ruler in Washington, who pressed the censorship button. “
Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia in the United States, told the BBC’s The Media Show that social platforms should have taken action a long time ago, but “unfortunately, all actions are public relations decisions.”
“It is really bad public relations action, but their policy expressed in black and white is that if it is detrimental to the public interest, the account of the official or public figure will be deleted. In the last eight months or more Trump’s continued tenure on Twitter it’s bad for the public interest. “
Image source,Reuters
In October 2020, Twitter Chairman Jack Dorsey participated in the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing via video, focusing on answering the question: Does the absolute immunity of Section 230 encourages bad behavior from tech companies?
There are also comments that the removal of Parler, an app widely used by Trump supporters, by several major tech giants only shows the huge monopoly risk caused by these companies, which has caused significant damage to free speech. , including famous American journalists, lawyers and writers. Glenn Greenwald.
He believes: “In the last three months, the tech giants have banned reports on the Biden family, blocked the president’s speech, and removed a new competitor to manipulate American politics, censor political speech and the news. And the American liberals almost unanimously applauded and celebrated. “
He wrote: “The monopoly power of Silicon Valley destroyed Parler in a great show.”
He explained to the BBC: “Three months ago, the Democratic Party-controlled House of Representatives issued a 450-page report and concluded that the four Silicon Valley companies, Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook have classic monopolies. Power and use illegal and anti-competitive methods to combat and destroy any potential competition. One method mentioned in particular is app store control by Apple and Google. All mobile phone users, whether they are Android or Apple phones, can control which application the mobile phone user uses and downloads. “
Dr Jeffrey Howard, associate professor of political science at the University of London (UCL) in the UK, said in an interview with the BBC that social media platforms did recognize their “moral responsibility to take action against dangerous content. . They do. Do it well.”
“Social media platforms now recognize that freedom of expression is very valuable, but it is also limited. If the platform does not take action on dangerous speech, it will lead to moral complications. But a permanent ban will be issued for citizens on a platform. This is worrying because these platforms are not just commercial companies that provide services, they are also the main infrastructure of civic associations and a new form of public square. “
Howard said: “Although they are private business companies, they still have extremely important public responsibilities.”
In late 2020, just before the unrest in the US Congress, the British media industry magazine “Press Gazette” published a ranking of media companies in the English-speaking world. , ranking in the top 50 based on company revenue.
Among them, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, Facebook, and Apple are in the top three, leaving traditional media companies far behind.
The magazine wrote: None of the top ten companies claim to be a news company, instead focusing on social media, technology, entertainment, or telecommunications.
