Both sides: The debate over social media and censorship

Summary

The video script discusses the banning of President Trump from social media platforms like Snapchat, Twitter, and Facebook, igniting debates on free speech and the power of tech companies. Experts debate whether these platforms have too much control over public discourse, while acknowledging Trump's incitement of violence as a reason for the bans. Concerns are raised about the potential for driving dissenting voices underground and the risk of increased violence due to perceived censorship.

Takeaways

• 📢 Social media platforms like Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have banned or suspended President Trump's accounts due to policy violations, sparking a debate on free speech and platform control.
• 🔍 Ethan Zuckerman, a media professor, believes that social media sites are within their rights to ban users who do not follow their policies, especially when it comes to inciting violence.
• 🗣️ The banning of President Trump's accounts has raised concerns about the control that social media platforms have over public discourse and the potential for them to silence voices, including those of political leaders.
• 🤔 There is a debate on whether social media companies have too much power and whether the government should intervene to regulate their actions regarding content moderation and user bans.
• 🚫 The platforms argue that President Trump's posts were inciting violence, which goes against their community guidelines, justifying their decision to ban him.
• 👥 Some experts, including a UCL law professor, suggest that while private companies can ban users, banning an elected official with a large following might be an excessive use of their power.
• 🤨 The question of whether Twitter's actions were consistent with their own policies is raised, with the understanding that the process is not transparent and not subject to court review.
• 🔑 There is a concern that the decision to allow or silence elected officials or leaders is controlled by the business interests and the powerful people who run these social media platforms.
• 🚧 The banning of President Trump from social media platforms may drive his followers to less monitored platforms, potentially leading to darker and more dangerous conversations.
• 🔄 The banning has led to some of his followers feeling aggrieved and that their speech is being suppressed, which could lead to further alienation and a small fraction becoming more likely to act violently.
• 📣 President Trump released a White House video condemning the ban as an assault on free speech and urged Americans to listen to each other rather than silence one another.

Q & A

What action has Snapchat taken regarding President Trump?

Snapchat has banned President Trump, following a series of suspensions and bans from other social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

What is the debate ignited by the social media ban on President Trump?

The debate is about whether social media platforms have the right to ban a political figure, and the implications this has on free speech and the control of public discourse.

What is Ethan Zuckerman's opinion on social media platforms banning President Trump?

Ethan Zuckerman believes that social media sites are within their rights to ban users who do not follow their policies, especially if they are encouraging violence.

What concerns does Ethan Zuckerman express about the control social media platforms have over public discourse?

Zuckerman is concerned about the extent of control that platforms like Facebook and Twitter have over public speech and is unsure if it's a good idea to have such power in the hands of a few companies.

What is the argument against social media platforms having too much power?

The argument is that these companies have the ability to silence even the leader of the free world, which raises questions about their influence on public discourse and the potential for abuse of this power.

What alternative public sphere is suggested to address the concerns about social media platforms' control?

The suggestion is to build a public sphere where people have control over the platforms they use, possibly through community governance and decision-making.

What does the UCL law professor think about the banning of elected officials from social media platforms?

The law professor believes that while private companies can ban users, banning elected officials with large followings may be an excessive use of their power.

What is the concern about the potential for violence following the ban of President Trump on social media?

The concern is that by closing off one channel of communication, people may find less monitored channels where conversations can become darker and potentially more violent.

What is the potential impact of the ban on President Trump's followers?

The ban may make his followers feel aggrieved and that their speech is being suppressed, potentially leading to alienation from the system and, in a small fraction of cases, an increased likelihood of violent action.

What did President Trump say in his White House video released after the social media bans?

In the video, President Trump condemned the bans as an assault on free speech and urged Americans to listen to each other instead of silencing one another.

Outlines

00:00

📢 Social Media Bans on President Trump

The paragraph discusses the recent ban of President Trump by Snapchat, following similar actions by Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. It highlights the debate over whether social media platforms have the right to suspend or ban users, including the President, for violating their policies. Ethan Zuckerman, a media professor, argues that these platforms are within their rights to ban users who incite violence, as Trump was accused of doing. The paragraph also touches on the broader issue of the control that social media companies have over public discourse and the potential risks of giving them too much power.

05:02

🤔 Concerns Over Social Media's Power and Free Speech

This paragraph delves into the concerns about the influence of social media companies on public discourse and free speech. It raises the question of whether these companies have too much power, especially after banning a high-profile figure like President Trump. The discussion includes the potential for these bans to drive people to less monitored platforms where conversations could become more extreme. The paragraph also mentions the risk of alienating people and potentially increasing the risk of violence. The interviewees agree that while Twitter's actions were not a violation of the First Amendment, there is a shared concern about the power these companies wield in shaping public discourse.

Keywords

💡Pardon Power

Pardon power refers to the authority granted to a president to forgive federal offenses. In the video, it is mentioned that the president will lose this power when he leaves office, which is a significant aspect of the transition of power and its limitations.

💡Snapchat

Snapchat is a social media platform known for its ephemeral messaging features. The script discusses how Snapchat is banning President Trump, which is part of a broader narrative about social media platforms taking action against certain accounts due to policy violations.

💡Social Media Bans

Social media bans are actions taken by platforms to restrict or remove access for certain users or content. The video script highlights the banning of President Trump from various platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, sparking debates on free speech and platform policies.

💡Free Speech

Free speech is a fundamental principle allowing individuals to express their opinions without fear of censorship or punishment. The video discusses the tension between free speech and social media policies, especially in the context of political figures being banned from platforms.

💡Incitement of Violence

Incitement of violence refers to the act of encouraging or urging others to engage in violent behavior. The script mentions that President Trump was accused of inciting violence, which was a key reason cited by social media platforms for banning him.

💡Control of Public Discourse

Control of public discourse pertains to the influence or power over the topics and narratives that are publicly discussed. The video raises concerns about social media companies having too much control over what is discussed in the public sphere.

💡First Amendment

The First Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution that protects freedom of speech, religion, and the press. The video script clarifies that the actions of private social media companies regarding bans are not in violation of the First Amendment, as it pertains to government censorship.

💡Platform Policies

Platform policies are the rules and guidelines set by social media platforms to govern user behavior and content. The script discusses how President Trump's actions were deemed to have violated these policies, leading to his bans.

💡Parler

Parler is a social media network that gained attention as an alternative to mainstream platforms. The script mentions Parler as a platform that some users were redirected to after being banned from Twitter, indicating a shift in where certain communities may congregate.

💡Alienation

Alienation refers to the feeling of being isolated or estranged from a group or society. The video script suggests that social media bans can lead to alienation among users who feel their speech is being suppressed, potentially leading to negative consequences.

💡Underground Movements

Underground movements describe activities or groups that operate outside of mainstream channels, often in secrecy. The script warns that banning certain voices on social media could drive them underground, potentially making their discourse darker and less monitored.

Highlights

Snapchat bans President Trump, joining other social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram in suspending or banning him.

Debate ignited over social media's control and regulation of speech, especially concerning political figures.

Ethan Zuckerman, a MIT Media professor, believes social media sites are within their rights to ban users who do not follow their policies.

Concerns raised about the potential for social media platforms to silence the leader of the free world, indicating their significant power.

Discussion on whether social media companies have too much power and influence over public discourse.

Argument that the banning of President Trump may not be a violation of the First Amendment since these are private companies.

Concerns about the potential for increased violence if social media platforms limit the expression of certain views.

Suggestion that the banning of political figures on social media could lead to darker, less monitored conversations.

Discussion on the impact of Twitter's decision on Parler, a new social media platform gaining popularity.

Concern about the potential for social media platforms to alienate users and increase the risk of violence.

President Trump's response to the ban, condemning the assault on free speech and urging Americans to listen to each other.

UCL law professor's opinion on the platforming of President Trump, suggesting it may be an excessive use of power.

Questioning whether Twitter's actions are consistent with their own policies and the broader implications for public discourse.

Debate on whether powerful and wealthy individuals should have such a strong influence on public discourse through social media.

The role of government in regulating social media and the potential for alternative public sphere constructions.

Hope for a conversation about social media that focuses on community governance and decision-making rather than censorship.

Transcripts

IS THAT HE WILL LOSE THE

PARDON POWER WHEN HE LEAVES

OFFICE IN 7 DAYS. ROB. DAN

THANK YOU.

WELL NEW TONIGHT SNAPCHAT

IS NOW BANNING PRESIDENT

TRUMP. THE LATEST IN A LINE OF

SUSPENSIONS AND BANNED FROM

THE LIKES OF YOU TOO FACEBOOK

INSTAGRAM AND TWITTER THE MOVE

IGNITING A DEBATE AGAIN OVER

SOCIAL MEDIA TODAY I SPOKE

WITH PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF

THE ISSUE FIRST MIT MEDIA

PROFESSOR ETHAN ZUCKERMAN WHO

SAYS SOCIAL MEDIA SITES ARE

INDEED WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS AS

WHO DO NOT FOLLOW THEIR

POLICIES. SO MUCH NEWS THE

LAST FEW DAYS OBVIOUSLY WHAT

TWITTER AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA

PLATFORMS DID IN TERMS OF

BANNING PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS

ONE OF THOSE MAJOR HEADLINES,

WHAT WAS YOUR TOP LINE

REACTION. WHEN YOU HEARD WHAT

THEY HAD DONE WHY DO YOU THINK

I THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT

STEP BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS

ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO

VIOLENCE. IT WAS HARD TO READ

THE VIDEOS THAT HE POSTED ON

TWITTER AND FACEBOOK AS

ANYTHING OTHER A CENTURY

EXCUSING THE VIOLENCE OF THE

CAPITAL AND ENCOURAGING HIS

FOLLOWERS TO KEEP FIGHTING.

AND I THINK IN SITUATION LIKE

ABOUT FIGHTING SHOUTING FIRE

IN CROWDED THEATER. IT MAKES

SENSE TO REMOVE SOMEONE FROM

SAID MORE BROADLY I'M NOT

THRILLED ABOUT THIS IDEA OF

HOW MUCH CONTROL FACEBOOK AND

TWITTER HOW WILL ANYONE SPEECH

AND I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD BE

ALL THAT'S VIRAL.

HOW TALK ABOUT MAY

LITERALLY THESE COMPANIES HAVE

THE ABILITY TO SILENCE THE

LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD

REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINIONS ON

THE GOOD OR BAD WHAT HE SAID.

AS YOU JUST ALLUDED TO DOES

SPEAK TO THEIR POWER IS THIS A

SITUATION WHERE THE HAVE TOO

MUCH POWER IN A FEW THINGS SO

THEN WHAT CAN BE DONE CAN THE

GOVERNMENT STEP IN WHAT HEAVY

REMEDY SOMETHING THAT. IS THIS

BIG AND THIS POWERFUL.

LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT

SOMEONE WHO HASN'T PRESS

SECRETARY AND SO ON WHO HAS A

MASK AND STABBED. THE WORLD'S

ATTENTION IS ON HIM. HE HAS A

WEEKLY RADIO ADDRESS IS A LOT

THIS IS NOT SOMEONE WHO'S

GOING TO BEING WRITING LETTERS

IN A BOTTLE AND ARE GOING TO

TELL. IT WHAT'S HAPPENED IS

THAT A CHANNEL OF

COMMUNICATION.

THAT THE PRESIDENT

PARTICULARLY LIKES AND BEEN

SECRETLY NEWS AND TO EXPRESS

ANGER HAS BEEN KABUL. THIS IS

THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE

DECISION HERE TWITTER IS A

PRIVATE COMPANY. THEY HAVE

RULES OF THE ROAD AND THOSE

RULES OF THE ROAD EXPRESSLY

FOREHEAD. INCITEMENT VIOLENCE

PRESIDENT TRUMP WARNED MANY

MANY TIMES SO I DON'T THINK

THE PLATFORMS ARE IN THE

WRONG. I DO THINK IN THE LONG

RUN, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A GREAT

IDEA TO GIVE THE PUBLIC SPHERE

OF OUR TIME AND PUT IT OUT OF

THERE'S OTHER WAYS WE COULD

BUILD THIS PUBLIC SPHERE. SO

THE PEOPLE HAVE CONTROL OVER

THE PLATFORMS THAT THEY'RE

USING AND I'M HOPING THAT

CHART OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NEW FORMING

IS THAT WE HAVE A CONVERSATION

THAT ISN'T ABOUT WHEN THE

PLATFORMS KICK PEOPLE OFF

ISN'T NECESSARILY BEEN

GOVERNMENT REGULATION MIGHT BE

A BOW. WHETHER WE BUILD SOCIAL

MEDIA IN A WAY THAT OUR

COMMUNITIES AND OF GOVERNING

AND DECIDING 1, 6, AFTER THE

SPEECH.

I ALSO SPOKE WITH A UCL A

LAW PROFESSOR ABOUT THE SOCIAL

MEDIA D PLATFORMING PRESIDENT

TRUMP HE TOLD ME THAT HE

DUSTING PRIVATE COMPANIES LIKE

USERS, BUT THAT BANNING

ELECTED OFFICIAL WITH SUCH A

LARGE FOLLOWING MAYBE AN

EXCESSIVE USE OF THAT NOW.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONTENT

ONLINE. DO YOU FEEL IT

VIOLATED SOME KIND OF NORM

INCITED VIOLENCE MANY DO YOU

THINK TWITTER HAS A CASE HERE.

TWITTER CONCLUDED THAT IT

IT AND THEN IT WILL BE AN

INTERESTING QUESTION WHETHER

ALL OTHER KINDS OF SPEECH FROM

PEOPLE IN OTHER MOVEMENTS ALSO

VIOLATE THEIR POLICIES AND

MAYBE SOME OF THE TIME THEY

TO.

SO NOT SAYING THAT TWITTER

VIOLATED ITS OWN POLICIES,

IT'S HARD TO TELL BECAUSE OF

COURSE THE PROCESS IS NOT

THE COURTS. WE HAVE ALL THESE

COURT RECORDS YOU CAN LOOK TO

TO THE COURTS ARE WHAT IS

POSSIBLE THAT WHAT THEY'RE

DOING IS QUITE CONSISTENT WITH

THEIR OWN POLICIES. THE

QUESTION IS WHETHER WE WANT TO

HAVE THESE POWERFUL AND

WEALTHY INFLUENCING.

PUBLIC DISCOURSE AT THAT

LEVEL AND MAYBE THE ANSWER IS

YES, MAYBE THERE IMPORTANT

CORRECTIVE TO POSSIBLE THIS

BEHAVIOR RIGHT THERE. I LOVE

ELECTED OFFICIALS OR LEADERS

ELSE MAY BE. BUT ALSO YOU

MIGHT WORRY THAT YOU DON'T

WANT TO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE

THE DECISION WHETHER AN

ELECTED OFFICIAL OR CANDIDATE

FOR OFFICE OR THE LEADERS OF

RELIGIOUS OR IDEOLOGICAL

MOVEMENT WHETHER HE CAN

EFFECTIVELY TALK TO HIS

SUPPORTERS IS CONTROLLED BY

HIS BUSINESS AND BY THE RICH

AND POWERFUL PEOPLE WHO RUN IT

ONE TWITTER DID A FEW DAYS AGO

CERTAINLY ENHANCED.

THE PARLORS OF THE WORLD

MADE THEM A LITTLE MORE

APPEALING. SO THERE IS. DANGER

TO CLOSING OFF ONE ROAD

BECAUSE THEN FOLKS FIND SOME

OTHER ROADS WHERE THE

CONVERSATION CAN POTENTIALLY.

GET DARKER BECAUSE IT IS LESS

MONITORED.

I PART OF THE PROBLEM IS

WHEN YOU BASICALLY WHAT THE

PRESIDENT HAD ABOUT 80 MILLION

FOLLOWERS. TWITTER WHEN YOU

TELL THOSE PEOPLE LOOK WE

DON'T LIKE THE PERSON YOU'RE

FOLLOWING WE'RE GOING TO BLOCK

AND NEW PLATFORM PARLER THAT

SOME OF YOU NOT ONLY BY ANY

MEANS BUT MANY OF YOU ARE

INTERESTED WE'RE GOING TO

INTO. I THINK THAT MAKES

PEOPLE FEEL AGGRIEVED THAT

MAKES PEOPLE FEEL THEY THEY

ARE SHOT UNDER THERE HE THEIR

SPEECH IS BEING SQUELCHED AND

THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO THEN AS

A RESULT BECOME ALIENATED FROM

THE SYSTEM AND THEN A FRACTION

A TINY FRACTION TO BE SURE BUT

A FRACTION OF THEM ARE MORE

LIKELY TO ACT VIOLENTLY AS

ARGUMENT THAT IN THE PAST

OFTEN WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN

ATTEMPTS TO SPEAKERS ON THE

LEFT SAYING OH YOU THINK

YOU'RE SHUTTING UP KIND OF BAD

DANGEROUS PRO COMMUNIST OR PRO

REVOLUTIONARY A VOICE WHAT

YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE JUST

DRIVING THEM UNDERGROUND AND

MAKING THEM MAKING PEOPLE FEEL

WORRIED REMOVING THE SAFETY

LOOK EXPRESSION AND GAINED US

PERHAPS INCREASING THE RISK OF

VIOLENCE. WELL THAT'S A

CONCERN THAT I THINK IS TRUE

WITH IT SO WHETHER YOU'RE

WORRIED ABOUT THE LEFT THE

RIGHT.

NOW BOTH MEN I INTERVIEWED

WHILE FALLING ON DIFFERENT

SIDES OF THE DEBATE STILL ARE

SEEMINGLY IN AGREEMENT ON

WONDERING IF SOCIAL MEDIA

COMPANIES THESE DAYS SIMPLY

HAVE TOO MUCH POWER TOO MUCH

INFLUENCE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE

IN AMERICA, THEY ALSO AGREE

THAT WHAT TWITTER DID WAS NOT

IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST

AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS A

PRIVATE COMPANY LIKE THE

OTHERS THAT HAVE TAKEN STEPS

TO BAN THE PRESIDENT MEANTIME

SPEAKING OF MISTER TRUMP. HE

DID RELEASE ANOTHER WHITE

HOUSE VIDEO TONIGHT AS WE

MENTIONED CONDEMNING THE

THEM AN ASSAULT ON FREE

SPEECH. HE SAID AMERICANS

SHOULD LISTEN TO EACH OTHER

AND NOT SILENCE EACH OTHER.

NOW TO SOME OTHER STORIES