GAFA vs. MAGA

Freedom of speech is one of the most appreciated features of the so-called free world. The fact that your opinions can be heard without risking prosecution is still not a given in many parts of the world. However, this freedom has certain limits that have to be observed to ensure that the society keeps running with a reasonable smoothness.

After the outrageous event on Capitol Hill, departing president Trump has finally manage to get his accounts on Twitter and Facebook banned under the argument that the user has violated the terms and conditions by using it to incite violence. It this an adequate measure? From my point of view it is, but it is a late measure.

Photo: Free-Photos on Pixabay

To start with, it looks to me like a bad habit that the President of any nation (let alone the US) uses a commercial platform to communicate with the public. In the end, there is a dedicated press cabinet paid with taxpayers' money to take care of communication and ensure that it is timely and accurate. Will the Trump administration refund the US citizens for the money they "saved" by using Twitter instead of giving press conferences? Of course not, because they did not save any money. The press cabinet was staffed anyway, and probably had a much harder time trying to exercise damage control on the irresponsible communication that the POTUS was spitting out in the social media. So, in my opinion, both Facebook and Twitter should have rejected the use that Trump has been doing of their platform at a much earlier stage: on thing is to post a picture of what the First Lady is having for Christmas Dinner and a completely different thing is calling to political action.

However, considering that many companies use the likes of Facebook and Twitter to promote the commercial agenda (and pay for it), one could argue that the President should have a similar right to promote his causes. In the end, the platforms are in the business for the money and if they can make money out of the President's messages there is no commercial reason no to do so.

Still, if his agenda leads to the incitement of violence, which is prosecuted in the US as a caveat of the freedom of speech, it is their moral obligation to curtail such activities. It is true that, being a private corporation, they only respond to their shareholders and to Justice, so in most cases it would be necessary a court order to force such a measure, but on the other hand failing to act could mean such a blemish in their reputation that could drive the users away and bankrupt it.

Is this a problem? In most cases, it is not, but in the rising culture of cancellation there is an obvious risk that certain polarizing matters will trigger hasty reactions but the platforms that unjustifiably side with one opinion in favor of the other. And because they are private companies they have every right to decide when to stop a discussion, but that could be a loss in the ability of the citizens to debate openly. Currently there is an active debate over a possible removal of the Parler app from the Apple store because they refuse to police the postings of their users: the irony is that the Big Four (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, GAFA) bring down Trump's campaign to Make America Great Again (MAGA). Let us just hope that they not overstep in their diligence to avoid conflicts. Have a nice weekend.