Trump’s ban has reignited the discussion around social media regulation and brought to question the political power of tech companies. Among (inapplicable) calls for the First Amendment, of ‘free speech’ from the former President’s son, and the insistence on the ban’s justification from others, reactions to Trump’s ban mirrors the current political divisions in the US. They also highlight an understanding of the action’s significance. Trump’s de-platforming sets a new event in the history timeline of digital regulation. How to move forward from Trump and his ban from social media, alongside regulatory measures from the tech giants, are the complex matters at hand.
A President who cried ‘‘fake news’ and became fake news. This was a ban in the making.
The Capitol riot was no frenzy. It had been building up for months. Following the US election results and successive ‘stop the count’ and ‘stop the steal’ Republican campaigns, Twitter marked as many as 200 Trump posts as ‘disputed’ claims. An appropriate myriad of memes followed – our generation’s coping mechanism. Surely highlighting the baseless claims would be the solution? Except that, for those subscribing to Trump’s conspiracy theories, ‘flagging’ doesn’t do anything except re-establish false beliefs. It is just another ‘leftist’ platform with anti-Conservative bias. (Also, another disputed claim.) Impetuously shouting ‘fake news’ at his least-liked media publications. Even starting legal moves against some tech giants. Trump and his misinformation campaigns have ensured he ends his term with a supporter base alienated from mainstream media and social networks.
Social media sites have temporarily banned Trump’s accounts.
— Marianna Spring (@mariannaspring) January 7, 2021
But conspiracies about rigged elections thriving online for months – which he fielded – were part of what inspired unrest.
This ecosystem of viral disinfo has already had real world impact with many casualties. pic.twitter.com/CaRUU11cQD
The Capitol riots highlighted the platform’s inexperience: they are reactive rather than proactive. They end up deciding amidst breaking news events. They risk accusations of poor decision-making in the spur-of-the-moment. For mainstream social sites, Trump’s infamous ‘Go home’ video was the last straw. It didn’t matter that courts had disproved election fraud claims in 59 out of 60 legal cases. Telling rioters, or as he put it, ‘patriots’, to ‘go home’ while validating their motives was counterproductive at the very least. Almost immediately Twitter flagged the video, suspending interaction ability. It ended up deleted from several platforms hours after posting. What followed was platform after platform suspending the former President’s accounts, commonly citing violence incitement as their basis.
Deplatforming and other solutions against misinformation
The debate around possible social media regulations has long taken a political angle. After all, the 2016 US election was the catalyst for social platform regulations amidst the ‘fake news’ popularisation. The responsibility these social networks have in times of elections is enormous. Fittingly, the US inauguration day’s speeches abounded in references to democracy. Its ‘triumph’ and its ‘fragility’ among other allusions to the Capitol riots.
In a way though, Trumpism has already eroded democracy and discounted the election process. As scholar Bakir mentioned in 2017, “losers [losing] based on what they perceive to be the winners’ false claims” foments social discontent with democracy and its outcomes. Regarding possible solutions, her fake news research proposed measures around digital advertising as far more effective than flagging posts. She argues for flagging to be effective further media literacy education is needed.
The storming of the capital hill was organized on social media. Time to stop acting like things said online don't translate into real-world action. https://t.co/tpEZZ2KfGZ
— Sheera Frenkel (@sheeraf) January 6, 2021
Regulation in social platforms is a need though. Deplatforming may seem harsh and it is, which is why this worry that ‘anyone’ could now be next is not necessarily justifiable. It takes prior controversies and violent real-life ramifications. Examples of the few extreme cases are UK far-right commentator Katie Hopkins and American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Known for his hundreds of questionable statements, now concretised into violence, Trump simply fit the criteria. A necessary action, which can inhibit audience reach, de-platforming him sooner could maybe have weakened the Capitol rioters’ use of social media as organisation platforms. At least on the surface level as part of their activity stuck to fringe social networks like Parler. Now with the Trump ban, these may grow as the alternatives to turn to for the extreme right.
A work in progress
Misinformation remains unregulated. Social media’s solutions alone will always have limits. They are private business models that find profit in the numerical engagement. De-platforming and warning labels are not where the work ends, it is where public space comes in. Amidst a wealth of proposed solutions in misinformation scholarship, collaboration is one of the points of agreement.
Private social media companies should work alongside public regulators to attain an organized consensus. And where governments seek regulatory measures, legacy mainstream media can ingrain its journalistic values of accuracy, among others. In this way, it can also recover from Trump’s attacks in the fight against misinformation. Only then it can be assured that social media regulation, even Trump’s ban, is not thought tyrannical.
Nerea Zambrano
Featured image courtesy of Freestocks via Unsplash. Image license can be found here. No changes were made to this image.