Three important questions in the wake of Trump's social media ban

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

I'll start off by saying that I generally agree with Trump's ban from Twitter and Facebook. However, going forward I think there are three questions that need to be answered if we are to avoid what has recently happened, as well as accusations of political bias from a platform:

​

1. What is the line that should not be crossed? It's fair to say that Trump's ban only came in the wake of what happened on Wednesday. Had he tweeted his last two tweets without the riot and attempted insurrection, I very much doubt they would have been interpreted as inciting violence. On the other hand, I have seen conservatives accusing Twitter of bias because threats of violence (even more blatant ones that Trump's tweets) from other users, in particular from those on the left and those upset with the US, even foreign officials. Now how truthful these claims are is up for debate, although I suspect you can always find threats of violence somewhere on social media. However, assuming that they these claims are right, should it not also be the case that these people also be banned? Why should Twitter wait for such calls to be acted upon to ban them? If the issue is with the credibility of the threat, how is credibility to be ascertained?
2. How much leeway should public figures have on social media? Up until now, Twitter's argument has been that since Trump is a public figure (the president, even) then what he says on a "public" platform should be heard and judged by all. Of course, recent events have shown how that can be abused. So, should the TOS regarding removable and bannable content be apply equally to all users regardless of public status, or should public figures and officials have some more leeway?
3. How should matters of fact and conspiracy theories be handled going forward? A driver of the events on Wednesday was Trump's continued peddling of the conspiracy that the election was stolen or rigged. Even before the election, he was casting doubt on the security and fairness of the election. Now of course, I think that being able to question how important services are run is key to making sure they are being run the best possible way. However, how can this be done on social media without resulting in dangerous conspiracy theories? Indeed, I don't think it was necessarily wrong for people to question how the US election was going to take place during a global pandemic. Was it then the way that people like Trump went around questioning and raising doubt that was wrong? How should conspiracy theories on social media be handled? Are the misinformation notices put on such posts enough? Should they be removed and hidden away, or be actively engaged with to expose their falsehoods? And what level of evidence to the contrary should there be before sharing what you think becomes spreading a conspiracy theory?

​

I don't have the answers to these questions. I am hoping that there can be a civil and fruitful discussion on these matters. Without resolving these problems, we could see history repeating itself or the downfall of social media as a whole.

Submitted January 09, 2021 at 10:44PM by knoxie00 https://ift.tt/35sDWGR