Both sides: The debate over social media and censorship
Summary
TLDRThe 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
📢 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.
🤔 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Pardon Power
💡Snapchat
💡Social Media Bans
💡Free Speech
💡Incitement of Violence
💡Control of Public Discourse
💡First Amendment
💡Platform Policies
💡Parler
💡Alienation
💡Underground Movements
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
浏览更多相关视频
Social Media Mockingbird: The Hidden Truth Behind Your Feeds
Trump's 'violent and ugly' rhetoric turning away female voters: former Rep. Comstock
Zuckerberg Admits He Censored, Plans To Censor Even More
Hang on! Did the CIA Have Telegram's Founder Arrested? | Redacted w Natali and Clayton Morris
Tucker Carlson and Mike Benz reveals the main driver of censorship in the United States
TECNOFEUDALISMO: O CAPITALISMO JÁ FOI SUPERADO?
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)