You are here: Home » Technology » News
Business Standard

As tech giants banish Donald Trump, here's the next big question

Major tech platforms have shown him the door in the wake of his incitement of violence by supporters at the US Capitol on January 6. He's gone from Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat even Shopify

Donald Trump | Facebook | Twitter

AP  |  San Francisco (US) 

Donald Trump

As the world adjusts to a without @realdonaldtrump, the next big question is: Now what?"

Major tech platforms, long accused of giving President special treatment not allotted to regular users, have shown him the door in the wake of his incitement of violence by supporters at the US Capitol on January 6. He's gone from Twitter, Facebook, even Shopify.

But in many ways, booting the president was the easy part.

Will companies now hold other world leaders to the same standard? Will they wade further into deciding what is and isn't allowed on their platforms, potentially alienating large swaths of their user base? Will all this lead to further online splintering, pushing those flirting with extreme views to fringe sites and secret chat groups?

Although they've long sought to remain neutral, Facebook, and other social platforms are slowly waking up to the active role they and their algorithms have played in shaping a modern world filled with polarised, angry groups and huge factions falling for bogus conspiracies and misinformation about science, politics and medicine.

What we're seeing is a shift from the platforms from a stance of free-speech absolutism, towards an understanding of speech moderation as a matter of public health," said civic media professor Ethan Zuckerman of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

None of this can be fixed soon, if ever. Certainly not by blocking a president with just a few days left in his term.

But there are blueprints for future action. Remember Plandemic?" That was the slickly-produced, 26-minute, misinformation-ridden video promoting COVID-19 conspiracies that emerged seemingly out of nowhere and racked up millions of views in a matter of days.

Facebook, and YouTube scrambled to take it down too late. But they were ready for the sequel, which failed to attract even a fraction of the attention of the first.

Sharing disinformation about COVID is a danger because it makes it harder for us to fight the disease," Zuckerman said.

Similarly, sharing disinformation about voting is an attack on our democracy.

Unsurprisingly, it's been easier for tech giants to act decisively on matters of public health than on politics. Corporate bans of the U.S. president and his supporters have led to loud, if generally unfounded, cries of censorship as well as charges of left-wing bias.

It's even attracted criticism from European leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel not exactly a friend of Trump's.

Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of elementary significance.

This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms, he told reporters in Berlin.

Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked.

From that German perspective, it should be the government, and not private companies like and Twitter, who decides what counts as dangerous speech on social platforms.

That approach might be feasible in Europe, but it's much more complicated in the U.S., where the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of expression from government interference, although not from corporate policy on privately owned communication platforms.

Governments, of course, remain free to regulate tech companies, another area of ferment. Over the past year, Trump, other Republicans and some Democrats have called for revoking a fundamental 1996 legal provision known as Section 230.

That protects social platforms, which can host trillions of messages, from being sued into oblivion by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted. But so far there's been more heat than light on the issue.

Still, few are happy with the often sluggish, after-the-fact, three-strikes takedowns and suspensions that have characterized Twitter and for years.

Particularly in the light of the Capitol insurrection, the deadly Charlottesville rally in 2017 and live-streamed mass shootings.

Sarita Schoenebeck, University of Michigan professor who focuses on online harassment, said it might be time for platforms to reevaluate how they approach problematic material on their sites.

For years, platforms have evaluated what kinds of content are appropriate or not by evaluating the content in isolation, without considering the broader social and cultural context that it takes place in, she said.

We need to revisit this approach. We should rely on a combination of democratic principles, community governance and platform rules to shape behavior.

Jared Schroeder, an expert in social media and the First Amendment at Southern Methodist University, thinks the Trump bans will encourage his base of followers to move towards other social platforms where they can organise and communicate with fewer if any restrictions.

It's likely the bans will fuel the us-against-them narrative and it's also likely other forums will get a boost in traffic, as we saw after the 2020 election," he said.

The bans have taken away the best tools for organizing people and for Trump to speak to the largest audiences, but these are by no means the only tools.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Wed, January 13 2021. 11:02 IST