Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch, and TikTok have suspended Trump’s social media accounts. Many of his extremist followers also were hit with sanctions by social media companies, which have shut down tens of thousands of user accounts, especially those promoting the false QAnon conspiracy theory.
“Permanently revoking users’ access to social media platforms and other websites — a practice known as deplatforming — isn’t a new concept,” Vox says, “But Trump’s high-profile deplatforming has spawned new confusion, controversy, and debate.”
“Many conservatives have cried ‘censorship,’ believing they’ve been targeted by a collaborative, collective agreement among leaders in the tech industry in defiance of their free speech rights. … Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey rejected that idea. ‘I do not believe this … was coordinated,’ he said. ‘More likely companies came to their own conclusions ….’
In other words, if a house catches fire, and several neighbors call the fire department, that doesn’t mean they colluded, worked together, or consulted among themselves before reporting the fire.
“Still, the implications for free speech have worried conservatives and liberals alike. Many have expressed wariness about the power social media companies have to simply oust whoever they deem dangerous … [but] these complicated, chaotic arguments have clouded a relatively simple fact: Deplatforming is effective at rousting extremists from mainstream internet spaces.”
Bottom line: “Studies show that deplatforming works.” That’s because deplatforming “makes it harder for them to recruit … decreases their influence … [and] disrupts extremists’ ability to communicate … and in some cases creates a barrier to continued participation in the group.” Deplatforming also changes the culture “of both the platform that’s doing the ousting and the group that gets ousted.”
“When internet communities send a message of zero tolerance toward … extremists, other users also grow less tolerant …. The element of public shaming involved in kicking people off a platform reminds everyone to behave better.”
But the overarching issue hanging over all of this is that, naturally, “many people … question whether a loss of free speech is at stake.” While deplatforming doesn’t violate the First Amendment, which doesn’t apply to private companies, “many people think social media purges are akin to censorship. One expert says,
“People who care about free expression should be concerned about the power that the largest internet companies have over the content of online speech … we should resist the centralization of the power to censor.”
The other side of that argument is “the core issue for many, many members of the public: When extremists are deplatformed online, it becomes harder for them to commit real-world violence.”
“The free speech debate obscures that reality, but it’s one that … people of color, women, and other marginalized communities rarely lose sight of. After all, while people who’ve been kicked off Twitter for posting violent threats or hate speech may feel like they’re the real victims here, there’s someone on the receiving end of that anger and hate, sometimes even in the form of real-world violence. … And while the debate about the practice will likely continue, it seems clear that the expulsion of extremist rhetoric from mainstream social media is a net gain. Deplatforming won’t single-handedly put a stop to the spread of extremism … [but is not only effective, but sometimes necessary.”
Read the entire Vox article here.
Comment: It’s a complex issue, without pat answers, even on the scale of a little blog like this one. When Dr. Steve Schwartz created this blog, he included a comment feature. Since his death in March 2020, The-Ave.US has been run by a contributor who doesn’t have site administrator access. I can’t change its format or structure, but I can moderate comments. I’ve created and posted a rules-based commenting policy, which implies that comments complying with the policy will generally be approved for posting.
Recently, I’ve wrestled with that. Historically, many newspapers and magazines have published “Letters to the Editor,” but they receive many more submissions than they can print (a limitation that doesn’t exist for websites), and they’ve exercised strict editorial control over which letters get into print. After months of reviewing and approving comments, I’ve started wondering whether this blog should go to, or at least lean more toward, a “Letters to the Editor” approach, in which only comments worthy of readers’ time are approved for posting. The argument for this is to spare readers from having to wade through trash to get nuggets. On the other hand, I don’t want this blog to become like the many rightwing blogs that don’t tolerate opposing views and ban users who challenge their beliefs. Steve was an academic who established this blog in a university setting, where free and open debate is a core value. Still, garbage is garbage, and if you don’t have something worthwhile to say, don’t say it. I’d rather you made that decision than me.