In recent days, we have witnessed violent outbursts in the US that have seriously undermined confidence in democracy on a global scale.
While some talk about the end of democracy, others say that democracy was never a “real thing”, but an instrument that served as an export product to disguise the financial and political interests of those who lead the world.
But despite popular opinions, democracy is real, and one of its greatest achievements is (or should be) freedom of speech.
Those who ban and limit - own the democracy
Whatever you may think about Trump’s presidency and his connection with the attacks on the US Congress, which the final verdict will be given by the legal institutions, Facebook and Twitter censorship, more precisely the permanent deletion of his profiles is something we all should be worried about.
However, most political commentators and politicians, with the help of the mainstream media, act as the current social media companies’ actions are - irrelevant news.
Is the mainstream media also afraid of censorship of social networks that could cost them their valuable social rating, or there is something more to it?
Who should sanction the perpetrators? Social Media moguls or legal system?
The attacks were not supposed to happen, and it is undeniable that they did more harm than good to those belonging to the Republican electorate.
But who should sanction those who invaded the Capitol?
One of the most perfect legal and judicial systems in the world, or a Silicon Valley company?
After Trump’s profile was permanently banned from a number of social networks, the question becomes more obvious than ever before: Are Facebook and Twitter just neutral social media platforms, or media companies producing and filtering political information?
The difference between desirable and undesirable violence
It is clear that most social media platforms have double standards when determining what is violence and what is not.
While Twitter allows hashtags like “Hang Pence” and “Burn the churches,” it bans Donald Trump’s tweets, which in no way called for violence and rioting.
If social media platforms are truly neutral services, then why is there a lack of consistency to sanction all calls for violence?
In the eyes of social media, clearly, not every crime is equal. The sad part is - some “victims” value more than others.
Dorsey and Zuckenberg act like masters of justice
Many political rivals of Donald Trump believe that his presence on social networks is dangerous, but that the censorship of his speech is even more concerning.
Social Media became an integral part of our lives, especially now in the era of the Covid-19 pandemic that completely changed the way we live and work.
Tech moguls, led by Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey, and Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, used the situation and made the most out of it, which according to some critics of their recent policies and actions, made them the most powerful people in the world.
After Donald Trump’s announcement that he might launch his own social media platform, Zuckerberg and Dorsey reacted promptly and silenced all those who found that idea good.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
The totalitarian and selective enforcement of the rules by Twitter and Facebook is the opposite of everything these companies publicly advocate, and the new political set, led by Biden, Harris, and Pelosi, does not instill much confidence that things could change in the future.