Published on
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
byCommon Dreams
Twitter's Ban on Trump Will Deepen the US Tribal Divide
This is a perfect illustration of why curbs on political speech-even of the
most irresponsible kind-invariably backfire.
byJonathan Cook
In this photo illustration, a Twitter logo is displayed on a mobile phone
with President Donald Trump's Twitter page shown in the background on May
27, 2020. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
In this photo illustration, a Twitter logo is displayed on a mobile phone
with President Donald Trump's Twitter page shown in the background on May
27, 2020. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
Anyone who believes locking President Donald Trump out of his social media
accounts will serve as the first step on the path to healing the political
divide in the United States is likely to be in for a bitter disappointment.
The flaws in this reasoning need to be peeled away, like the layers of an
onion.
The act of barring an elected president, even an outgoing one, from the
digital equivalent of the public square is bound to be every bit as
polarising as allowing him to continue tweeting.
Twitter's decision to permanently ban Trump for, among other things,
"incitement of violence" effectively cuts him off from 88 million followers.
Facebook has said it will deny Trump access to his account till at least the
end of his presidential term.
The act of barring an elected president, even an outgoing one, from the
digital equivalent of the public square is bound to be every bit as
polarising as allowing him to continue tweeting.
These moves threaten to widen the tribal divide between the Democratic and
Republican parties into a chasm, and open up a damaging rift among liberals
and the left on the limits of political speech.
Claims of 'stolen' election
The proximate cause of Facebook and Twitter's decision is his encouragement
of a protest march on Washington DC last week by his supporters that rapidly
turned violent as hundreds stormed the Capitol building, the seat of the US
government.
Five people are reported to have died, including a police officer struck on
the head with a fire extinguisher and a woman who was shot dead inside the
building, apparently by a security guard.
The protesters-and much of the Republican party-believe that Trump's
Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, "stole" November's presidential election.
The storming of the Capitol occurred on the day electoral college votes were
being counted, marking the moment when Biden's win became irreversible.
Since the November election, Trump has cultivated his supporters' political
grievances by implying in regular tweets that the election was "rigged",
that he supposedly won by a "landslide", and that Biden is an illegitimate
president.
The social networks' immediate fear appears to be that, should he be allowed
to continue, there could be a repetition of the turmoil at the Capitol when
the inauguration-the formal transfer of power from Trump to Biden-takes
place next week.
No simple solutions
Whatever we-or the tech giants who now dominate our lives-might hope, there
are no simple solutions to the problems caused by extreme political speech.
To many, banning Trump from Twitter-his main megaphone-sounds like a
proportionate response to his incitement and his narcissistic behaviour. It
appears to accord with a much-cited restriction on free speech: no one
should be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
But that comparison serves only to blur important distinctions between
ordinary speech and political speech.
The prohibition on shouting "Fire!" reflects a broad social consensus that
giving voice to a falsehood of this kind-a lie that can be easily verified
as such and one that has indisputably harmful outcomes-is a bad thing.
There is a clear way to calculate the benefits and losses of allowing this
type of speech. It is certain to cause a stampede that risks injury and
death-and at no gain, apart from possibly to the instigator's ego.
It is also easy to determine how we should respond to someone who shouts
"Fire!" in a crowded theatre. They should be prosecuted according to the
law.
Who gets to decide
Banning political speech, by contrast, is a more complicated affair because
there is rarely consensus on the legitimacy of such censorship, and-as we
shall see-any gains are likely to be outweighed by the losses.
Trump's ban is just the latest instance in a growing wave of exclusions by
Twitter and Facebook of users who espouse political views outside the
mainstream, whether on the right or the left. In addition, the tech giants
have been tinkering with their algorithms to make it harder to find such
content-in what amounts to a kind of pre-censorship.
But the critical issue in a democracy is: who gets to decide if political
speech is unreasonable when it falls short of breaching hate and incitement
laws?
Few of us want state institutions-the permanent bureaucracy, or the
intelligence and security services-wielding that kind of power over our
ability to comment and converse. These institutions, which lie at the heart
of government and need to be scrutinised as fully as possible, have a vested
interest in silencing critics.
There are equally good grounds to object to giving ruling parties the power
to censor, precisely because government officials from one side of the
political aisle have a strong incentive to gag their opponents. Incitement
and protection of public order are perfect pretexts for authoritarianism.
And leaving the democratic majority with the power to arbitrate over
political speech has major drawbacks too. In a liberal democracy, the right
to criticise the majority and their representatives is an essential freedom,
one designed to curb the majority's tyrranical impulses and ensure
minorities are protected.
'Terms of service'
In this case, however, the ones deciding which users get to speak and which
are banned are the globe-spanning tech corporations, the wealthiest
companies in human history.
The fact that western societies have agreed to let private hands control
what should be essential public utilities-turning them into vastly
profitable industries-is a political decision in itself.
Facebook and Twitter have justified banning Trump, and anyone else, on the
grounds that he violated vague business "terms of service"-the small print
on agreement forms we all sign before being allowed access to their
platforms.
But barring users from the chief means of communication in a modern,
digitised world cannot be defended simply on commercial or business grounds,
especially when those firms have been allowed to develop their respective
monopolies by our governments.
Social media is now at the heart of many people's political lives. It is how
we share and clarify political views, organise political actions, and more
generally shape the information universe.
The fact that western societies have agreed to let private hands control
what should be essential public utilities-turning them into vastly
profitable industries-is a political decision in itself.
Political pressures
Unlike governments, which have to submit to intermittent elections, tech
giants are accountable chiefly to their billionaire owners and
shareholders-a tiny wealth elite whose interests are tied to greater wealth
accumulation, not the public good.
But in addition to these economic imperatives, the tech companies are also
increasingly subjected to direct and indirect political pressures.
Sometimes that occurs out in the open, when Facebook executives get hauled
before congressional committees to explain their actions. And doubtless
pressure is being exerted too out of sight, behind closed doors.
Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple all want their respective, highly
profitable tech monopolies to continue, and currying favour with the party
in power-or the one coming into power-is the best strategy for avoiding
greater regulation.
Either way, it means that, in their role as gatekeepers to the global,
digital public square, the tech giants exercise overtly political powers.
They regulate an outsourced public utility, but are not subject to normal
democratic oversight or accountability because their relationship with the
state is veiled.
Censorship backfires
Banning Trump from social media, whatever the intention, will inevitably
look like an act of political suppression to his supporters, to potential
supporters and even to some critics who worry about the precedent being set.
In fact, to many it will smack of vengeful retaliation by the "elites".
Consider these two issues. They may not seem relevant to some opponents but
we can be sure they will fuel his supporters' mounting sense of righteous
indignation and grievance.
First, both the department of justice and the federal trade commission under
Trump have opened anti-trust investigations of the major tech corporations
to break up their monopolies. Last month the Trump administration initiated
two anti-trust lawsuits-the first of their kind-specifically against
Facebook.
Second, these tech giants have chosen to act against Trump now, just as
Biden prepares to replace him in the White House. Silicon Valley was a
generous funder of Biden's election campaign and quickly won for itself
positions in the incoming administration. The new president will decide
whether to continue the anti-trust actions or drop them.
Whether these matters are connected or not, whether they are "fake news" or
not, is beside the point. The decision by Facebook and Twitter to bar Trump
from its platforms can easily be spun in his supporters' minds as an
opportunistic reprisal against Trump for his efforts to limit the excesses
of these overweening tech empires.
This is a perfect illustration of why curbs on political speech-even of the
most irresponsible kind-invariably backfire. Censorship of major politicians
will always be contested and are likely to generate opposition and stoke
resentment.
Banning Trump won't end conspiracy theories on the American right. It will
intensify them, reinforce them, embolden them.
Obnoxious symptom
So in the cost-beneft calculus, censoring Trump is almost certain to further
polarise an already deeply divided American society, amplify genuine
grievances and conspiracy theories alike, sow greater distrust towards
political elites, further fracture an already broken political system and
ultimately rationalise political violence.
The solution is to address the real causes, and tackle the only too
justified resentments that fuelled Trump's rise and will sustain him and the
US right in defeat.
The solution is not to crack down on political speech, even extreme and
irresponsible speech, if it does not break the law. Trump is not the cause
of US political woes, he is one obnoxious symptom.
The solution is to address the real causes, and tackle the only too
justified resentments that fuelled Trump's rise and will sustain him and the
US right in defeat. Banning Trump-just like labelling his supporters "a
basket of deplorables"-will prove entirely counter-productive.
Fixing a broken system
Meaningful reform will be no simple task. The US political system looks
fundamentally broken-and has been for a long time.
It will require a much more transparent electoral system. Big donor money
will have to be removed from Congressional and presidential races. Powerful
lobbies will need to be ousted from Washington, where they now act as the
primary authors of Congressional legislation promoting their own narrow
interests.
The old and new media monopolies-the latter our new public square-will have
to be broken up. New, publicly funded and publicly accountable media models
must be developed that reflect a greater pluralism of views.
In these ways, the public can be encouraged to become more democratically
engaged, active participants in their national and local politics rather
than alienated onlookers or simple-minded cheerleaders. Politicians can be
held truly accountable for their decisions, with an expectation that they
serve the public interest, not the interests of the most powerful
corporations.
The outcome of such reforms, as surveys of the American public's preferences
regularly show, would be much greater social and economic equality.
Joblessness, home evictions and loss of medical cover would not stalk so
many millions of Americans as they do now, during a pandemic. In this
environment, the wider appeal of a demagogue like Trump would evaporate.
If this all sounds like pie-in-the-sky idealism, that in itself should serve
as a wake-up call, highlighting just how far the US political system is from
the liberal democracy it claims to be.
