Read on Twitter
Since I'm receiving lots of Q's on my views on the Trump Ban and Parler ban by platforms (Twitter, Facebook etc), I thought write about it. Here's how I think about this issue:
This is about power: As long as Trump hadn't lost the election, he wielded significantly more power
1/
This is about power: As long as Trump hadn't lost the election, he wielded significantly more power
1/
+ than the platforms. They feel more confident about these bans now that he has lost, because there can't be retaliation from him. There also won't be retaliation from other politicians in power: there is significant bipartisan condemnation against him.
2/
2/
+ Trump is out in the cold now, and his speech on these platforms is at the platforms mercy, like for you and me.
2. This is (a little bit) also about revenge: Trump has attacked platforms, and threatened to repeal their primary protection (safe harbor/230 of the CDC).
3/
2. This is (a little bit) also about revenge: Trump has attacked platforms, and threatened to repeal their primary protection (safe harbor/230 of the CDC).
3/
+ There may still be a push for modifying safe harbor, but there's now scope for a reasonable debate about the changes, as opposed to when Trump was using that as a threat.
3. Platforms do too little too late: If history is anything to go by, platforms are okay with extreme
4/
3. Platforms do too little too late: If history is anything to go by, platforms are okay with extreme
4/
+ problems/harm for a few people as long as it's small in percentage terms. It allows them to scale usage at very little cost, and by the time the problems are very large, they put in processes to deal with them. If 0.1% of people out of 100 million using Twitter face vicious
5/
5/
+ abuse, it's a small problem. Some times countries behave this way too: if 0.01% of people using Aadhaar in India cant get rations because fingerprint auth fails, it's a minor issue, even if it can lead to a few people dying (it has).
6/
6/
4. Can platforms ban him?Are platforms wrong in banning him?It's complicated. I'll explain:
4.1 Public function, private spaces: Platforms are private spaces performing a public function, & in order to ensure their own protection, position themselves as global public spaces.
7/
4.1 Public function, private spaces: Platforms are private spaces performing a public function, & in order to ensure their own protection, position themselves as global public spaces.
7/
+ Twitter is a global public sphere. Facebook is connecting people. etc. Can they ban you or me? Sure they can. It's private property. At the same time, you need free speech to be protected, & protecting the platforms that enable free speech is just as important as
8/
8/
+ protecting speech itself. Platforms use this trade-off in regulation to their advantage.
4.2 Speech is complicated: Policymakers choose to let platforms get away with negligence when it comes to enabling harmful conduct (drip-feeding of hate, live streaming shootings)
9/
4.2 Speech is complicated: Policymakers choose to let platforms get away with negligence when it comes to enabling harmful conduct (drip-feeding of hate, live streaming shootings)
9/
+ because you cannot rule by exception: exceptional situations like what happened with the US Capitol and incitement to violence cannot lead to overbearing restrictions that end up silencing legitimate speech. Speech is complicated.
10/
10/
+ If there is no restriction, then incidents like this happen. If there is a restriction, it can lead to arbitrary (and at times unintentional) censorship. The thinking is that more speech is good, and we shouldn't rule based on exceptions.
11/
11/
4.3 Can they ban Trump and get away with it? Of course they can. Can platforms be held liable for banning someone? Nope. Platforms have responsibility (to ensure a safe space) but no liability or accountability to do so. Even though these are private platforms performing
12/
12/
+ a public function, they are still private platforms. They can impose their own terms. They can be the arbiters of truth on their property. They only need to seem reasonable to you & me to ensure that we remain. And they can be brutally cold & calculating about power.
13/
13/
+ Remember the controversy in India against Ankhi Das for favoring a BJP politician inciting violence? Remember Facebook not disabling the incitement against Rohingyas? Or Twitter allowing ISIS handles? When it gets called out, they act.
14/
14/
5. Should they have banned Trump? Yes, I think so. Platforms should ban all incitement to violence, & all organising of violence, all threats. Do they do it for everyone? Of course they don't. You have to see comments that targeting women & women journalists on Twitter.
15/
15/
6. Will platforms be more accountable against hate speech in the future? Of course they wont. Least of all from powerful people. Not unless they're regulated and there's an expectation of reasonable action and accountability, as per laws.
16.
16.
