Originally published in print February 2021.
The recent decision by several social media companies to ban Donald Trump from their platforms was met with mixed reactions from both supporters and critics of the former president. While many praised the move after Trump’s repeated claims of election fraud and endorsement of violence on Capitol Hill, others, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, criticised the move as a threat to free speech and an open Internet. Some of those who welcomed the decision simultaneously criticised Twitter’s actions as too little, too late, and accused the platform of performatively jumping on an anti-Trump bandwagon in the twilight of his presidency. Above all, what the move highlighted was the inevitable political role that social media and tech giants play, and called into question the authority of regulation of online spaces. Can tech giants be trusted to regulate their own platforms independently? When they fail to do so, who decides who should and shouldn’t be given a voice in the online sphere?
Despite Merkel’s objections, claims that online regulations violate the “fundamental right to free speech” are somewhat untenable. The right to free speech simply protects a citizen’s right to speak without fear of state persecution. It does not require that we be allowed say whatever we like, wherever we like without fear of personal consequences, or allow us to bypass the terms of service to which we agree when utilizing the services of any private company – sure, screaming at the top of one’s lungs in big Tesco may not necessarily be illegal, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be removed from the shop by privately employed security fairly promptly. In this capacity, social media companies were well within their rights to suspend Trump from their platforms; the problem is, this minimal action doesn’t go far enough to minimise the damage already done. The eventual Trump ban did not arise out of concern for democracy, but rather an opportunistic publicity stunt in the closing weeks of Trump’s administration. Many were quick to criticize the platforms’ delay in taking such action, pointing to Trump’s long record of dangerous Tweets, including his downplaying of the severity of the pandemic, as far back as his Islamophobic Obama-bashing. Facebook’s own laissez-faire approach to misinformation on its site has long been hotly debated, blamed by many for the rise of Trumpism among the media-illiterate of America. Both companies have defended past inaction, citing a public-interest policy of allowing world leaders to reach constituents through their platforms, whatever they may say.
In many ways, the rise of Trump felt like a uniquely American phenomenon. In Ireland, the chances of a casual anti-Trump remark generating a negative reaction are slim – “Sure isn’t he ridiculous? And the state of his fake tan…” Among the vast majority of Irish people, Trump is viewed as at best comically incapable, and at worst dangerously malevolent; the notion of 75 million Americans voting for him seemed ridiculous. However, when the issue at hand is just slightly closer to home, we fail to realise just how often we fall victim to the same kind of fake news and right-wing misinformation. After the tragic killing of George Nkencho in December, lies and misinformation were shared widely on social media in Ireland, defaming Nkencho’s character. One particular image which alleged that Nkencho had a serious criminal record, was shared over 2,400 times on social media. Not a word of this post was true; yet in the fear and anxiety surrounding a challenging situation, thousands of Irish people were taken in by unsupported claims on social media. This incident alone speaks volumes about the potentially dangerous power of unchecked and deregulated social media platforms.
Clearly, social media companies are either incapable or unwilling to monitor and regulate their own platforms. The banning of Donald Trump barely scratches the surface of combating misinformation, serving only to harden die-hard supporters against perceived threats to free speech, and falsely reassure naïve social media users that the platforms which they use are effectively policed and monitored. The fact of the situation is that tech giants inevitably play a role in politics; a role which they have continually failed to wield responsibly. While these companies should be made subject to penalisation, the vast nature of the internet makes regulation a near-impossible task for even those willing to do so. Governments are themselves limited in their capacity to counter the problem. What is needed is not to make social media a more reliable or responsible source of information, but to reduce its influence as one. Investment in reliable, accessible journalism, and encouraging a sensible scepticism in social media users will do more to combat the political power of tech giants than even the strictest regulatory measures ever could.
