• Jessica Colarossi

    Science Writer Twitter Profile

    Jessica Colarossi is a science writer for The Brink. She graduated with a BS in journalism from Emerson College in 2016, with focuses on environmental studies and publishing. While a student, she interned at ThinkProgress in Washington, D.C., where she wrote over 30 stories, most of them relating to climate change, coral reefs, and women’s health. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 68 comments on Banning Trump from Social Media Makes Sense. But Beware the Downside

  1. Scary findings. I have felt feel very omitted by Trumps use of social media as his means of communication throughout his tenure. Social media has its usefulness but when our country is in the midst of a health and economic crises and racial reckoning, actual publicly spoken words of healing and concern are called for from our leader. I think our leaders should be held to a higher standard of transparency and truthfulness: they should be more closely monitored and restricted in their use of social media.

    Reply
    Link

  2. Great article. The real disease affecting ours lives is not Covid it is social media.
    As evidenced by one mans lies and manipulation a deep and serious radicalizing has manifest in our society. This is as serious as global warming. Keep up the great writing.

    Reply
    Link

  3. We need better laws against racist symbols and hate speech being used in public. Apparently, we also need protection from sedition. These terrorists should go back to where their families came from if they are not interested in participating in our free democracy.
    In addition, since Trump is the leader in a cult, why don’t these people leave the U.S. and buy land in South America where they can have their leader and the dictatorship they seem to crave.

    Reply
    Link

    1. Wow. Maybe we need to work on addressing the root of some of these social divides rather than proclaiming that we should banish everyone ‘back to where their families came from’, or to South America, which you seem to think would be welcoming of a dictator. Unbelievable. Also, there are plenty of cults in the US I’m sure, they aren’t just found in South America either. You’re calling for laws against hate speech but claiming that anyone who follows the opposition party is a member of a cult and are freely denigrating an entire continent. Peace, freedom and democracy starts with every single one of us, including how we talk about these issues.

      Reply
      Link

  4. Jessica, you are correct; “…Beware the Downside”. Which truth or facts are correct? Who determines this? Who is allowed to speak, and who isn’t? When we “ban” or “erase” speech or history we edge ever so much closer to tyranny; the “tyranny” that we were trying to avoid. There is so much speech that doesn’t agree with our point-of-view. But that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be heard. Whether it be Nazis marching on Skokie IL, MLK speaking in 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial, BLM protesting for reforms in the streets, or a President tweeting out his opinions, these are ALL protected speech in our country. When we “ban” them we begin travelling down a very slippery slope. The ensuing riots and looting this summer diminished the message of those trying to voice their feelings over what they perceived as injustices. The violence and looting of our Capitol building diminished what these people and the President perceived as injustices. It is not the media’s responsibility or right to censor ideas or people with which they do not agree. When this is allowed to happen, the ” banned speech” will migrate to other platforms which will only feed the division in our society. We are indeed heading into a very unsure and perhaps dangerous time. There has always been a divide in our society, in our ideology. However the space and gap between was never too deep for compromise or discussion. Recently, Media and Social Media have taken “a power tool” to the divide and widened and deepened the space between us to a point where we can no longer hear, speak or even begin to discuss; let alone compromise on anything. One party, one thought, and the ability to shut out opposing views is dangerous for us and our society. I fear for the future for my children and grandchildren.

    Reply
    Link

    1. Keep in mind, Paul, that free speech means you are free to say whatever you want (for the most part) without fear that the government will throw you in jail for it, or worse. Forcing companies to promote people’s hate speech is not the same thing. No one has suggested these people be jailed or executed for what they say. They are free to say it. And, they are free to create their own platforms to promote it. Rest assured your children and grandchildren are safe. They will be able to say whatever crazy thing comes to their head without fear of retribution from the government. If it’s about hate or spreading dangerous lies, Twitter and Facebook shouldn’t be forced to print it.

      Reply
      Link

      1. Whatever the legality, I am perplexed by the idea that Freedom of Speech, alone among human rights is repeatedly deemed to deserve no protection from abridgement by fellow citizens, employers, service providers or anything else but ones own government.

        Freedom of religion, for instance is protected from abuse in the workplace and in provision of services. Were some tech billionaire to infringe upon your right to life it would still be murder.

        It’s also oddly selective. Loose Change was a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that inspired violence and sedition, if on a less grand scale, and it’s easily found on line, still. Communist manifestos, Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, none of them hard to find, at all.

        For that matter, the Declaration of Independence, itself, was seditious and treasonous, and led to a bloody, violent, rebellion and the wholesale oppression and terrorization of loyal subjects. By the standards of hate speech and inciting violence espoused today, I suppose it should have been renounced?

        Reply
        Link

    2. Great comment. I agree wholeheartedly. The cure for hateful speech or bad ideas is not censorship. It is more free speech. If Twitter and Facebook want to practice viewpoint discrimination and hide behind their status as “private companies”, then we should boycott them by deleting our accounts. Hit them where they live: their bank accounts. Boycotts worked for the civil rights movement when private businesses discriminated on race; the same will work now to fight viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech. This wrong too must be overcome!!

      Reply
      Link

  5. No right is unlimited. Advocating violence or attacks on the USA is not protected speech. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Trump is banned only because he incites violence. Anyone who does that should be banned. If Biden tweeted a pic of trump framed by a gunsight and said “time to take action” he should be banned….but as a decent human being he’d never do that. It currently appears that the trump followers are being singled out simply because they are the ones advocating violence and sedition.

    Reply
    Link

  6. Just to put it into perspective-Trump is the only world leader banned from social media.
    Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Ayatollah Khamenei are enjoying full privileges. Human rights record is obviously irrelevant to the CEO of US based media and social media giants and their users.

    Reply
    Link

  7. Glad to see a balanced discussion here about democratic principles. Of all the values of democracy, protecting free speech rights has to be at the very top. The first thing that goes in a transition from a free society to an authoritarian one is silencing dissenting opinions and removing competing sources of news. One doesn’t have to look far or conduct an academic study to see this. All a curious person has to do is listen to international news from Reuters, BBC or NPR, and you’d get a crash course in how to concentrate political power in the hands of one or a few thugs. The steps are fairly straightforward and are repeated over and over until a brutal dictatorship is born. From Russia to Iran to China to Egypt to Iran to Burundi to Belarus – I could go on and on – a politician first seizes the means of communications and dissemination of information on their way to assuming total control.

    In the US, while the first amendment prohibits government – rather than private entities – from interfering with free speech, when it comes to Big Tech, the issue is more complicated. When you have as much ownership over internet infrastructure in the hands of just 3 or 4 huge Trillion (with a T!) dollar corporations, the line between government and private corporation begins to blur in disturbing ways. That kind of hyper-concentration of wealth and power should unsettle and unite all people from all political sides to fight against this. It may be expedient for the moment, it may serve one political side at the moment (because for instance Big Tech is such a huge contributor to the Democratic party), but it does nothing good for American society in the long term.

    Free speech advocates are worried about Trump – a sitting president – being de-platformed. While this is alarming in itself, there is a legitimate case to be made that when speech directly incites violence or other illegal behavior it is no longer protected speech. Trump’s behavior and lack of morals, and win-by-any-means mentality drives him to not respect this line. While I don’t believe he is fully responsible for the horrible violence that took place on the Capitol building, he is certainly partially responsible. But lawyers can legitimately argue about whether he is legally responsible. I don’t think it is a slam-dunk either way. Moreover, one has to ask the same questions regarding the BLM inspired riots last summer. This violence which often turned deadly – take Jan 6 and multiply it by a hundred and you will have some idea of the extent of the destruction – was being excused, justified and in some cases encouraged on social media in the name of social justice.

    But this focus on Trump and his being banned from Twitter misses the larger more important event in censorship that happened simultaneously with the Trump ban: the destruction of Twitter’s competitor, Parler by a coordinated effort of a few global giants mentioned earlier. There seems to be no justifiable reason for this given that that incitement to violence and hate speech happens routinely on Twitter and Facebook as I write this. When it is in the name of the politically correct causes it seems to be okay. Again during the horribly destructive BLM riots last summer, how much of the incitement and hate speech was taken down? I don’t remember Twitter or Facebook doing a purge of their accounts while cities were burning…I don’t remember Apple, Google, and Amazon colluding to destroy Twitter when BLM and Antifa used it and Facebook to organize violence. This politically motivated silencing and destruction of a business sets a truly scary precedent.

    Here’s a link to an article from Newsweek (a mainstream left-leaning news source) illustrating some of my points:

    https://www.newsweek.com/slippery-slope-arrives-big-tech-censorship-threatens-our-freedoms-opinion-1560667

    Reply
    Link

    1. I agree with this. I have deleted my Twitter and Facebook accounts. I won’t support businesses that will engage in this type of censorship. They may be free to do so, but I am also free to take my business somewhere else. If 20 million others do the same, they will get the message.

      Reply
      Link

  8. Speaking of censorship and “free speech”, my post from yesterday to this article was banned. Not sure why, as I simply suggested that the media censorship, news suppression, and canceling of opposing views is a very slippery (and dangerous) slope, and that control of media and message has been a very effective strategy in totalitarian governments of all stripes. I guess if this follow-up is also “cancelled” then it will just confirm how pervasive media censorship really is. Waiting to see how the BU censors respond.

    Reply
    Link

  9. This type of data really brings a lot of things into question, like are we doing enough to prevent misinformation and harmful information from spreading online. Is there some way to promote a better online environment without causing groups to feel censored? Perhaps a better definition of what it means to censor or infringe on the rights of citizens could help. One thing that I haven’t seen anyone talk about, what does this mean for foreign users? How are the policies enacted by Americans on American companies going to affect someone in another country?

    Reply
    Link

  10. I feel like a lot of people want one simple answer to this problem that is occurring, myself included. However, this is just not the case. Many conspiracy theorists existed even before the internet was widely available, the internet has simply provided them with a new place to share and discuss what they think. I do think that taking prominent spreaders of conspiracy theories and general misinformation off large social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook is beneficial to the general public. If an average person sees one of these false theories in their everyday life, this may cause them to believe it themselves, along with many others, overall contributing to mass misinformation, which has many dangers on it own, regardless of the information being spread. This leaves us with fewer, more radical groups roaming the internet. I am worried that the concentration of radical ideas within these non-mainstream platforms could lead people, who otherwise would not, to take violent action based on false ideas. So, we are left at an impasse, we wither have many who are misinformed or few who could become violent. Shifting the responsibility to the platforms themselves, regardless of how big, may increase accountability and decrease false information. What the platforms would need to be responsible for is getting rid this false information. Is this possible though? Is this the right thing to do? A TRUE solution to all of these problems with social media would take many years and many people with many different views points to come up with.

    Reply
    Link

  11. I have to agree, I saw some of my friends who were into conspiracy theories pushing other sites on their accounts and even sharing information that was entirely false. I don’t blame them though for migrating to other places to communicate when they felt as if they were being isolated. I think it will create a larger problem in the future because they will freely share fake information without correction which is going to bring about extremist ideas. I think most people do not trust the media in general and I think once they removed Trump with a permanent ban they felt that their voice was being taken away. They felt trapped because they thought big tech and the media wanted to silence them. As much as we blame Trumps tweets, I think the media and big tech fueled everything by releasing articles and videos with inflammatory titles and headlines trying to counter his posts. Then when many of these people moved to other platforms such as Parler they faced another issue where big tech removed the app from its stores on mobile phones and then Amazon servers took down the site. This sounds more like an attempt to remove competition during a large migration than it was to actually stop the spread of misinformation. The proof is that Twitter and Facebook still have tons of fake information being shared and posted daily and their application remain available on mobile phones. The actions taken by the news and Big Tech affirmed to many people in their minds that the were being censored. If these companies had put a temporary ban on trumps account and allowed him to return I think that many people would have stayed and waited and although I think it would be a reoccurring issue I think they would have stayed on a platform where they were less likely to share extreme ideas than if they had moved to these other platforms. Overall I think that the social media platforms have made things worse by their actions and have intentionally created this reality.

    Reply
    Link

  12. The incident at the capitol is a perfect example of the consequences of the spread of misinformation. It is scary to think about; if someone has it in their head, that something they think is “bad” or “wrong”, they would take the situation into their own hands. It is not surprising to me, that once the users were banned, that they moved to a new platform. It did surprise me, however to find that app stores had removed the Parler app because it had been the platform the toxic users moved to. Conspiracy theorist have been around a lot longer than the internet and I think the measures social media has taken to prevent them from talking to one another has given them the fuel they needed to strongly believe in what they preach to everyone who will listen. I can hear them now, “See! We are right! They are trying to silence us!” I think the fact checking Facebook and Twitter do, help educate them, but most don’t want to listen.. So how do we make a platform where everyone can have discussions on their views and beliefs? How do we make these people feel like they aren’t singled out, that we are all in this together? I think the ban could cause more damage than it would be beneficial. It is beneficial in that the misinformation isn’t spread to the majority.

    Reply
    Link

  13. I think it was the right thing to do, banning him after an incitement like that, but it did make a lot of people mad that he was done this way. I think he was a great president for us like many other people and I was confused and even a little upset when I heard he got banned because I though it was for no reason. A lot of the radicalization comes from misinformation on all of the platforms out there and nobody is doing enough to prevent the spread of this crap. If we do not get the false information out of our lives it will tear us apart because one group of people reads something that someone “said” and they form a hatred for them even when that person has never said anything close to that. Our biggest challenge will be getting fake information and news off of the internet to benefit everyone everywhere. If you have ever listened the most controversial things out there often begin with “well I read somewhere that …” and they go on to say something absurd. People will believe anything you put on the internet sadly enough and it has done nothing but divide us, especially in the last 4-5 years.

    Reply
    Link

  14. The ban was the correct move . Donald Trump was an amplifier for many fringe movements and ideas that have little to no basis in reality. I understand why people would be angered or upset over the ban but it was the best move in the situation. I feel disheartened by this study and how this ban may increase the level of zealotry and violence like we saw on January 6th. I believe also in that this ban helps limit the inherent corrosive nature of Trumps rhetoric and the ideology he expresses. He consistently calls for action against his opponents and simple calls for violence. . No person in public office should ever have rhetoric like this. It is a path that leads to the death of democracy.

    Reply
    Link

  15. I feel like the internet is radicalizing everyone to a certain degree. It seems like in just a decade everyone has adopted extremely polar views. in my experience people are unlikely to find common ground on any topic unless they agree completely with one another and since people end up only find common ground with people they agree with they become isolated from new ideas and begin looking at the world with blinders on. That’s what happened at the capitol. A group of people thought their actions were justified due to having support from each other. It’s honestly crazy what people will do when they have a mob mentality. That’s why I think the internet is so polarizing and radicalizing though, because nobody wants to take the time to discuss with someone of the opposite view point so they just find a community of people that thinks similarly to them and they feed off of each other until they get those blinders I talked about earlier. People on either side of the political spectrum will think the actions of people they agree with are justified and wont look at it from the other side and that’s what is so fundamentally wrong with the political atmosphere in America today

    Reply
    Link

  16. I believe that this is a very important article because it discusses a topic many people do not think about often. There are tons of websites out there that are similar to mainstream platforms where third party users can talk about whatever they want. The only issue with these websites is that they are not moderated like mainstream platforms are and can be dangerous because of all the toxicity. I think banning trump from Twitter was the correct move because of what was going on at the time. It is an awful thought to think about the number of websites users can migrate to if they are kicked off of mainstream media. I’m glad this article exists because it brings attention to a lesser-known issue.

    Reply
    Link

  17. Before I start my large spill of free speech and what censorship could look like if deemed necessary, I’ll start with the first part at hand of banning Donald Trump from social media sites.

    Firstly, was banning Trump from the media a smart idea? In my personal opinion, yes it was the correct thing to do after the course of the events of his violent tweets to the “protest” on the capitol this year. In the end, yes it didn’t stop the first occurrence but it aided in stopping future ones. Not only this, but he deserved to be banned at least after his recent comments, regardless of WHO he is, because violence ensued afterwards. I have seen videos of “MAGA” supporters beating cops with the American flag over the then president’s tweets. It’s a depressing sight of how a Coup d’état who claimed to love a country a lot and take high pride in their flags and their police force, tore apart people and broke into our nation’s capital. Consequently, removing Trump from social media sites does have a downside as demonstrated throughout the article. The quantity of supporters is not going to disperse just because their leader or obsession just because of them being removed from one platform. The internet is full of so many platforms, not only that but it is so easy to create anew. I can see the movement due to the influxuation of Trump supporters from sites such as Twitter to Facebook, I even have seen it on my (would like to say modest but more likely sadly) liberal feed of Trump supporters on my snapchat and tiktok. As evidence clearly shows from the article, you will never be able to truly stop a following as large as that; they will migrate to a new place to spread their hate. This problem will never have one simple solution; however it will take a myriad of solutions if any can satisfy all parties involved in this problem.

    Which leads to my next point, freedom of speech and the internet. The current issue is that some people want speech to be censored online and others want it to be, well free. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to discriminate or hate on others with no repercussions. It’s ill mannered and frankly preposterous to not expect any backlash or in some obviously needed reprimands of being removed from sites or unable to post due to the content that some people CAN/DO/WILL post. Many people, especially minors, are exposed to random content online through the media; sadly, disturbing or even detrimental to see as an adult, personally, let alone for a minor to see or get involved in. Now, an idea for thought, if you are one to believe in full free speech, how would you feel if a 12 year old on a social media site just sees Nazi’s in act in America. That’s not safe, that’s not kosher, that’s dangerous to those impressionable teenagers, and it isn’t comfortable for the majority of the public neither. Correspondingly, this content shouldn’t be readily available and uncensored. There should be guidelines when using sites online, you never know what you say online or how you act online affects others in their daily life. Not only that, but why allow clearly violent, dangerous content on a PUBLIC platform. Online is not the place for racism, discrimination, hate speech, antisemitism, or any type of phobia; not due to “breaking your freedom of speech” but because it is just outright immoral to plague a good stream with falsely wrong information or hate speech about a race ect. Freedom of speech does not give one the right to freely ruin lives. Sadly, speech and content guidelines aren’t as effective as one would dream. As much as we could create guidelines, they’re useless or even currupt if not correctly enforced. The last few months on social media I have seen countless times where on platforms such as tiktok have removed educational videos on how to spot neo nazis and videos like peaceful protests of BLM for “breaking community guidelines” for hate speech or discrimination. However, there are posts from neo nazi’s discussing information that aren’t removed. The largest problem is getting people or the company to enforce the appropriate guidelines. I sadly cannot purpose a better solution as much as I want to, I simply am unforsure on our future and the media.

    Reply
    Link

  18. I liked how this article stayed very civil and showed evidence that they found on the subject. Also, not a lot of people really think about and this article goes in detail with what happened and what could happen because of the event. I believe that this shows that the big companies of social media need to rethink the way they moderate their sites and have new guidelines so we can avoid events like this in the future. I also think it was the right decision in banning Trump.

    Reply
    Link

  19. I believe that banning President Trump from social media was a complete offense of the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech. Do I personally think that Trump’s speech incited violence? No. People have free will to do what they please and interpret his words on their own. When listening to that speech, did I want to storm the Capitol? No. Extremists are the one’s who raided the Capitol Building. I think it was very extreme to ban President Trump from social media. That sets a dangerous precedent that infringes on the Bill of Rights. We as Americans cannot just accept big tech to make that decision. If they can take away free speech from the President of the United States just imagine what they could take from your normal everyday American.

    Reply
    Link

  20. The ban was a correct move by the social media companies. While other leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladamir Putin have not been banned, the content they put out on these sites is very different than what former President Trump. Donald Trump continually spread misinformation and lies on his social media accounts which eventually lead to the January 6th riots at the Capitol building. False information is the basis of what has torn this country apart in the past 4-5 years. If we do not receive it, we are less likely to turn on each other not based on facts. Some say that this is in violation of the first amendment but we have to remember that no right or amendment is without its restrictions. President Trump incited the violence on January 6th and social media companies made the right move in banning him from their platforms

    Reply
    Link

  21. I agree that it was the right call to have had Trump’s accounts banned. I am totally for the Freedom of Speech but if, in any way, the risk of public safety is involved, that is a much bigger issue. The Internet companies, such as Twitter, made the right decision to ban Trump’s account to secure public safety and to remove any harm that otherwise violated their policies. Like the CEO, Jack Dorsey mentioned, “If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service.”

    Reply
    Link

  22. In a position such as president or any type of high ranking government position, its probably best just to stay off social media. For the sake of the country, and for everyone’s well being. Was banning him the right thing to do? Maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t, there’s many points that people can make about violations of free speech and many points people can make from his sayings to previous post on twitter. However, this all probably could’ve been avoided if social media wasn’t used for personal goods at such a high ranking office.

    Reply
    Link

  23. I find the fact that people will change platforms pretty interesting. When you think about it, it makes sense that people leaning on the fence of which side to believe would feel as if they were wronged by witnessing a ban. Coupling this with the extreme people that are die-hards for what they believe and less moderation and I can see how normal people could be convinced of these ideals. It would start with a switch out of spite and then eventually grow into an actual belief if that’s all they hear in an echo chamber like environment. This would definitely be an explanation as to how some extremist groups have so many members. I feel like this could be a really good stepping point for future research into this as well.

    Reply
    Link

  24. After reading this article I have come to the conclusion that many things are on the internet that do not need to be on there. The internet has given many people a platform to be able express their opinion. Many people want everything to be fixed suddenly but this is not possible. That is because everyone has a right to express their opinion. While many people are on different sides on many topics, that does not mean their opinion should be removed from public platforms. There should be factcheckers and things that help dissuade misinformation and hate on the internet. That is because the only answer to inappropriate and untrue things online should not be to remove them. That is why I think that everyone should be able to post whatever they like online, but it should have fact checkers so that people can see the truth and not believe untrue information.

    Reply
    Link

  25. While I agree in freedom of speech and values of democracy, our country’s safety needs to be our first priority. I agree with banning Trump from social media for the rest of his term. When thinking about all of the recent events that had happened with our cities, the rioting, the police brutality, etc. There were many of things that weren’t handled the way they should have been. In this country, we need to lead by example. With Trump being banned, I believe that it will limit the misinformation and violence. I do b believe Trump wanted the best for the American people but unfortunately, his mouth ruined it for him.

    Reply
    Link

  26. This article has a lot of information. It was a shocking news for everyone when it was listened that Trump is banned to the social accounts. Banning every account has its own requirements. The banning culture is undermining people’s healthy conversations. But it allows us to express ourselves and appreciate the world around us. According to Gianluca Stringhini, it’s a right decision to banned Trump from social accounts but it might have some unexpected circumstances on people’s lives. Social Media sites like Twitter and Facebook bans Trump accounts from their servers because of the Trumps’ posts about election frauds and rally to attack the Capitol Building. As the result, a violent mob attacked the Capitol which causes so much disturbance. The decision of banning the trumps’ accounts is right and make sense, but it might have the hidden consequences. The hate speech would prevails to smaller hidden platforms and the supporters of become more violent and aggressive. These actions can seem like legitimate platform efforts to counter Trump’s rhetoric of violence-fuelling. Nevertheless, the fact is that they can do nothing to really disengage their followers or resolve problems of abuse and hate speech. Banning Trump from social media won’t necessarily silence him or his supporters. It’s important to note that the Internet has predated hate speech, bigotry and abuse. There would be a way for those who are predisposed to these philosophies to interact with someone like them. A main error is searching for alternatives within the current system when it comes to imagining a world with less hatred, bigotry and violence.

    Reply
    Link

  27. I know a lot of people were enraged at the banning of Donald Trump’s social media accounts. However, it was the smartest decision to make given the situation. Trump’s posts were encouraging the incitement to the capital and there were rumors of a second incitement, that being one of the reasons for Trump’s ban. The events that occurred on January 6th are a perfect example of how the spreading of misinformation on the internet can lead to horrific events. This ban was done out of safety for the public, not to take away anyone’s freedom of speech.

    Reply
    Link

  28. I believe his ban should of happened whenever he first posted something nasty. All this uproar now is just giving Trump more attention that he does not need.

    Reply
    Link

  29. Donald Trump’s banning may seem necessary, but it will only end up feeding into the disillusionment of his followers. Donald Trump’s message began with the idea that the system was rigged against his side; what will they think when they have proof of a collective (if not coordinated) purging of his presence on social media platforms?

    Also, the bannings will simply facilitate more people taking their online personas elsewhere. For all the talk about media sites like Twitter being both open and secure, they seem to have a shocking record of being uneven with their censuring. While banning Trump may seem necessary, I worry that this will simply create more echo chambers; Trump’s followers will continue to operate on other sites, while Twitter will follow an increasingly more uniform thought pattern and try to tighten attempts to edit users. I pray that this is just naysaying on my part, but… it worries me.

    Reply
    Link

  30. The banning of trumps social media accounts was a necessary step to help stop the lies he’s fed his followers for the past two months. I supported trump back in 2016 when he swore to make America first but now in 2021 looking back at the past four years he’s caused so much separation between everyone and caused many people to hate and cause violence on this beautiful country we call home..

    Reply
    Link

  31. According to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, social media platforms can restrict and ban any account that promotes violence and hate. This is a standard that most internet services uphold. This policy should not be under mind when it comes to the President of the United States. As stated by Jack Dorsey, Trump was warned that his actions would lead to his account being banned. Trump’s many supporters believe their voices are being censored. During a very confusing time, the last thing people need is our President spreading hate and violence, denying the results of a fair election.

    Reply
    Link

  32. honestly. i can see the viewpoint of the article being correct. you have the smaller platform extremists views being brought into the main platforms and spreading, sure. when you ban the head of these posts the followers will follow them back to their original platforms, yes. However, the main problem a lot are having with the whole fiasco is he was taken down for “inciting violence” through his spread of “false information” saying there was fraud in the election. whether that is true or not is heavily split in our country. It is true that from things that Trump has said, violence has surged, whether from his followers or from people trying to hurt his image more (again, the opinion on which of these is true is heavily split in our country). This being said, Trump and conservatives that have been taken off of these social media platforms for the events that have happened are not the only perpetrators of this accusation. Many groups in the past and currently use social media for spreading false information and inciting violence but do not get punished for it. Even other world leaders. So the question really becomes, was it just because he was the President that he was put on a higher pedestal? And if so can you really say that the social media platforms were doing it to stop hate speech on their platform, or to stop hate speech from that one person because of his influence? Even though these situations continue to arise and take place with less influential people at the head and end up doing arguably more damage.this kind of leniency for the other groups is what is causing so much uproar when only one group is publicly getting demonized and persecuted but others do not, which is what adds to the massive immigration to other platforms out of fear that even if the person who belongs to that group but not as extreme as to want to commit illegal and violent acts will also be taken off of their site.

    Reply
    Link

  33. I think that we are at a crossroads as a culture. What we’ve learned is that online hate groups find comradery far too easily, and gain confidence to take their actions offline and into the real world. The progenitor of this behavior were gun shows like that kinds Timothy McVeigh attended, where these communities had forums and got together and drank and lamented about the death of white supremacy. In much the same way, communities like the r/The_Donald being forced into further isolation leads to more direct radicalization. The crux, however, is that we’ve also seen what can happen when hate speech is allowed to remain in the open. It leads to the normalization of racism, and clouds the collective unconscious with vitriol, stalling progress.

    Reply
    Link

  34. No right is unregulated. It is not free expression to promote abuse or threats in the USA. A suicide pact is not the Constitution. Just because he incites abuse should Trump get barred. Anybody who does that needs to be banned. If Biden tweeted as Trump did, a gunsight-framed photo of a trump and said “time to take action,” he should be banned. However, he will never do it as a decent human being. The Trump backers currently tend to be singled out solely because they are the ones who promote abuse and sedition. Many people are complaining that only Trump is banned from social media but no other leaders like Putin or Khamenei, are enjoying the use of social media because they do not run to tweet just like an angry kid.

    Reply
    Link

  35. I agree with the decision to ban Trump from popular social media platforms such as Twitter. Free speech should be highly valued on social media but there has to be regulation when the spread of misinformation and hate on these sites incites violence such as the event that occurred at the Capitol. Companies have the right to regulate their platforms for the safety of the public which I think is the correct decision.

    Reply
    Link

  36. I believe that it was necessary to ban Donald Trump off of Twitter, but the fallout surrounding it may create more issues than solve issues. However, if they did not ban him, then he may have caused more issues due to what he posted on social media, so it creates a sort of catch 22 situation where doing something may potentially be as bad as not doing something. This ordeal represents another debate over freedom of speech and what constitutes different forms of speech. However, the social media companies are private entities that have their own terms of service (TOS), and Trump’s tweets violated their TOS, so they were within their rights to ban him.

    Reply
    Link

  37. I don’t think that president Trump is responsible for this terrible act. The FBI have confirmed that it was planned before Trumps speech, and even in his speech he said for people to peacefully protest. Also Social media companies shouldn’t be able to censor the elected president of the united states. It doesn’t matter if you like the current president or not, they were elected and social media companies shouldn’t have the power to block them from communicating to the American people.

    Reply
    Link

  38. Trump won’t quiet easily and it will not suppress hate speech or even reduce the capacity of individuals to incite violence. Trump’s personal Twitter account since 2009, one could argue he used the platform inordinately. There’s much speculation about what he might do now.

    Reply
    Link

  39. Banning Trump from social media won’t necessarily silence him or his supporters. It’s important to remember hate speech, racism and violence predate the internet. Those who are predisposed to these ideologies will find a way to connect with others like them. And censorship likely won’t change their beliefs, since extremist ideologies and conspiracies tend to be heavily spurred on by confirmation bias. This is when people interpret information in a way that reaffirms their existing beliefs.

    Reply
    Link

  40. Banning the US President, Trump may be a good decision if followed by the Section 230 Communication decency act. But banning him or his supports will not stop the hatred or decimation speeches. Their beliefs will remain constant even if they share at some social media platforms or not. They may share their thoughts publically or via some other means like blogs or alone standing websites. They may spread hatred speech over the internet using the websites or blogs because the section 230 communication decency act is not applicable over those platforms. Instead this is only applicable over the social media platforms. The speech or words that Mr. Trump shared is one of the common remarks that are shared widespread over the internet. May be his words could distract some of the readers and lead them towards the violence but most of the reader would surely be supporting him. So more meaningful thing, in my opinion is this there must be some positivity spreading speech by the opponent. That could help some distracting persons or may be most of his supports, to see the reality and turn towards what was against hatred and racism.

    Reply
    Link

  41. In today’s era technology is a blessing and a disguise at the same time. It’s up to the users that how they use it in a good manner or bad. We have grown nation, Banning Mr. Trump can not bring much change in social media technology. Instead, it could spread more hatred among the Trump supports. According to Communication Decency Act, it was absolutely the right step. But truth is that banning him or his supports can not restrict their point of view, their beliefs, and their hatred. Might be possible it could rise up their negative factors. Social Media platforms are not confined to share their thoughts instead they can keep on spreading negative on the public level as well.

    Reply
    Link

  42. No right is unregulated. It is not free expression to promote abuse or threats in the USA. A suicide pact is not the Constitution. Just because he incites abuse should Trump get barred. Anybody who does that needs to be banned. If Biden tweeted as Trump did, a gunsight-framed photo of a trump and said “time to take action,” he should be banned. However, he will never do it as a decent human being. The Trump backers currently tend to be singled out solely because they are the ones who promote abuse and sedition. Many people are complaining that only Trump is banned from social media but no other leaders like Putin or Khamenei, are enjoying the use of social media because they do not run to tweet just like an angry kid.

    Reply
    Link

  43. While I agree that banning Trump on the platform was the right decision to protect public safety at the time, I do not see it as a long term solution. After all, it was not his intent for people to siege the building and commit violent crimes. When posting online and not speaking directly to the people, it leads to people having different interpretations of the message that you were trying to get across. So while I do not see anything inherently wrong with President Trump’s messages, I can see how you could interpret it to be promoting the actions taken during the siege. This is why we need to shift our focus to section 230 and change how banning and moderation on these platforms is handled. It is important to provide both public safety and our god given rights as American citizens. The only way to do so would be to develop new rules and ways to moderate the social media platforms.

    Reply
    Link

  44. In my opinion, this decision is the right one to make. I understand the point of view of Twitter’s CEO and that he believes the decision was the best for public safety. Trump’s comments were shaking and immoral, they should not be tolerated on a private platform. Section 230 guarantees that Twitter couldn’t be held legally responsible but, it’s apparent that Dorsey’s moral compass was not in line with these regulations. He deemed it was his responsibility to get involved and prevent any more jeopardization of the public’s safety. While it is still unclear whether this decision is the correct one I can completely understand the reasons behind it

    Reply
    Link

  45. I do not believe banning president trump was the right move. Trump didn’t intend on his supporters to raid the capitol but to rally them into believing he would still win the election. I don’t think trump should’ve been banned from these social media sights because even though the man was president he shouldn’t have been banned because he said what he thought. People have different standards for president and trump didn’t fit those standards that’s why people disliked him and that’s why he was banned. But at the same time i believe that the owners of the social media sights should have the power to remove people that they don’t want on their platform, with that being said they shouldn’t abuse their power by removing trump but still allowing racist’s and other hateful people on there platform. This is why section 230 needs a reform.

    Reply
    Link

  46. The massive spread of misinformation spreading on social media is the true problem here. Trump used misinformation to anger his supporters and incite riots on the capitol building. At that point the clear solution was to ban him on social media to stop the spread. It is not a long term solution nor is it the best solution, but it was the only way to keep America from falling deeper into turmoil. The focus should now shift as to how social media should properly deal with this situation next time to prevent it from happening again. Our lawmakers need to take a good look at Section 230 and make the internet a safe place. We need to halt the pandemic that is misinformation.

    Reply
    Link

  47. Banning Trump on these platforms was the right decision at the time, but I do not think it should be a permanent one. At the time of his ban, it was to protect public safety and to make sure another insurgency was not attempted. While Trump’s tweets may seem like he was promoting his supporters to siege the capitol building I do not believe that was his intentions. Trump’s ban will not change anything; it could potentially make things worse by causing more of his supporters to continue to build up hatred towards these platforms and the people in charge of them. Restricting other peoples point of views, beliefs, etc. will not help anything; everyone will have differing opinions and we need to have these discussions as we can not grow as people if we cannot see how other people view certain situations. Changing Section 230 is something that should be considered, while these platforms do need some form of protection against content posted on their platforms, they should not have full control over all content. There will need to be serious discussions over this before we get the result that is best for everyone.

    Reply
    Link

  48. I understand the decision that has been made to ban Trump on social media. Social media is a great place for high up individuals to post their beliefs and opinions, that many people will see. But the ban of Trump make cause more problems than it may solve. For instance there are always going to be extremist in communities, and they could take it way out of proportion and create a new platform that will be focused on hate. This would cause even more conflict if the hate was spread to other platforms, which is bound to happen on many different social media platforms.

    Reply
    Link

  49. Banning Trump’s twitter account was a necessary action, but it will have consequences. Trump extremists will take this as a direct sign that they are right about the odds being stacked against him. No leader of a country has ever been banned off of social media, and the extremists will take this as confirmation that there are forces working against them, and against Trump. This confirmation will lead to confidence, which could lead to them trying to spread their ideals, and more importantly giving them evidence to back up their ideals. This action has the unintended consequence of assisting the spread of extreme right wing ideals.

    Reply
    Link

  50. I’m all for the ban on Trump, without it more hate would be spread throughout social media. Twitter was smart about it since they took the opportunity to also spread a message of wanting to foster healthy conversations. I acknowledge that because of this Trumps followers have decided to make their own sites but with a lower level of activity I can see these fan made sites slowly fading away. I feel like without people on the opposite side of the opinion spectrum they will also get bored and inevitably go back to a main stream site. Also while it is fine to say what you want on social media when is the line drawn? In my opinion it becomes not ok when the toxicity happening on social media bleeds into reality. Which is exactly what started happening, like when the capitol was stormed and broken into. I definitely feel like the call to remove Section 230 is a bad choice. As long as social media platforms are correctly policing what is appropriate for their site and nothing too detrimental is being caused by it they should be allowed to be in control.

    Reply
    Link

  51. First off, social platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, are going to ban anyone they see fit in order to protect their company, regardless of section 230. They are a profit driven business where the users are essentially the product. If section 230 was repealed, they would be held liable for their users’ behavior and be exposed to lawsuit after lawsuit. Social media platforms are already walking a fine line trying to make governments, investors, and users happy.

    With that in mind, it makes sense why Reddit banned the_donald and incels subreddits. If a segment of their userbase starts to jeopardize the whole, then, of course, that segment is getting removed. Should they be concerned, on a pro-social level, that a portion of that segment will become further radicalized on another platform? I think they accomplished exactly what they aimed for considering that some of those followers decided to stay and adapt, while the die-hards settled into their new nest. Now, the new platforms get to walk on that same fine line.

    Regarding the radicalization in these new nests, I don’t think the answer is to destroy them, which will only serve to confirm their paranoia and cement their beliefs.

    Reply
    Link

  52. Trump was banned because of the spread of false information. The surge on the capital was due to him spreading false information. Maybe more efforts need to go into public education on current events rather than who to ban and when. Companies are scared of public backlash, it took a treasonous act to get a toxic, misinformed radical’s post banned. And look at the trends it has caused. Would be a lot more beneficial for all involved parties if people had correct information to base their judgement on instead of taking any one or a singular news outlet at face value.

    Reply
    Link

  53. New media organizations have become too powerful also, when you have biased news organizations spewing rhetoric and who contradictorily loved the ratings Trump had given them. It becomes easy to see why so much anger is directed at a President who constantly called them “fake news”! There’s many hate groups who are actually “groups” on social platforms, some even are Terror cell leaders that promote constant death and fear yet they were not removed or silenced. Many dictators who are unjust have communities on certain platforms as well. It seems that most people just cling to “MSM” main stream media and never raise their head above the fog to ask who “supports” these large organizations! Shouldn’t content moderation and policies also disclose the affiliated groups leaning interests with their biased political donations and beliefs? It is very understandable that trumps verbal etiquette was lacking and also over hyped by irritating MSM cries. Even more notable is that he didn’t write them himself instead relied on Daniel Scavino Jr. to tweet for him. https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/18/donald-trump-twitter-president-white-house-dan-scavino-golf-course-covfefe/1495205001/

    Reply
    Link

  54. Social media is a great way to connect with other’s of differing views. Its unfortunate though that despite different views being shown some cannot tolerate others views. And that some can not recognize when lines are being crossed. The dilemma between protecting society from violence cause by social media and censoring content is a hard one.

    Reply
    Link

  55. Social media has always allowed us to connect with everyone in every shape, form, and fashion. However, we shouldn’t abuse that connection by spreading false information or threatening others in order to prove your power. So I agree with banning trump due to him using this privilege as a way of harm rather than one of spreading awareness or thoughts that would help others rather than harm them.

    Reply
    Link

  56. banning Trump on social media, I believe, was not the right call. Social media is a a place for open forums and open discussion. By banning ones account, it shows that the views of that person are not supported by either the company that its being posted on or it in a way violates “community guidlines”. The fact of differieng view points is what social media is based on. If people do not like your opinion, they can say so and move on, but not have their view point silenced. In this case, the former President of the United States has been silelnced for sharing a viewpoint that is not supported by others or not worldly supported.

    Reply
    Link

  57. Corporations regularly become embroiled in controversial situations, but it’s not just hosting divisive characters on your social media platform that gives rise to controversy. There are plenty of examples of enterprises that make the most of tax loopholes or exploit “ gig workers ”. You’ll often hear them blaming the “profit-maximising shareholders” and claiming that they are obliged to take these tough decisions to maximise shareholder wealth.

    Reply
    Link

  58. Firstly, the imposition of a permanent digital punishment curtails in a permanent way Mr Trump’s rights to freedom of expression and information. Social media have been recognized as the new public fora of the digital society. Rehabilitation and the possibility of having a second chance are cardinal principles of criminal policy in many states. Digital penalties too should be proportionate to their aims and allow for second chances. All users, including politicians, despite their political orientation and positions, should be given a second opportunity to regain access to social media, after a reasonable amount of time and in so far as their conduct does not violate the platform’s internal rules again. Secondly, one must consider the interests of other individuals in accessing Mr Trump’s past and future ideas. US courts held that Trump’s twitter account represented a public forum, a space of social relevance where the former President shared his policy actions. Trump’s Facebook and Twitter accounts are currently inaccessible, meaning that what Trump posted until January 2021 on his personal social media account is not available to the general public. In light of the importance of accessing this information, both platforms could have frozen Trump’s social media profiles instead of preventing individuals from accessing the content published thus far. Given the existence of this intermediary solution, the total obscuration of Mr Trump’s accounts seems to be disproportionate. Moreover, Mr Trump could also use these channels in the future to continue his political activity. Suspending Mr Trump’s account for a reasonable amount of time is certainly legitimate in light of the serious threats that his posts risked generating. However, a permanent suspension would definitively prevent millions of Trump’s followers, and other interested parties, from reading the ideas of a former US President.Finding the right balance between these different interests will contribute to enhancing the level of constitutionalisation of online platforms. In this way, foundational constitutional principles will be adapted and translated to reflect the needs of a digital constitutionalism. Only through this gradual process will the social media environment become less lawless and more in line with the shared values that underpin our constitutions.

    Reply
    Link

  59. banning Trump on social media, I believe, was not the right call. Social media is a a place for open forums and open discussion. By banning ones account, it shows that the views of that person are not supported by either the company that its being posted on or it in a way violates “community guidlines”. The fact of differieng view points is what social media is based on. If people do not like your opinion, they can say so and move on, but not have their view point silenced. In this case, the former President of the United States has been silelnced for sharing a viewpoint that is not supported by others or not worldly supported.

    https://defineprogramming.com/

    Reply
    Link

    1. To the first sentence, it actually is. My best friend Desi Cooper and I told each-other that he should be in prison forever.

      Reply
      Link

  60. I knew that DJT was lying about the case of battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll suit. His truth Social media must be purged for good and I don’t want any of his lies by voice or text anymore! It’s time for the lesson of chastity!

    Reply
    Link

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from The Brink