Twitter, Trump and free speech: A move that heated up an already heated debate

Donald Trump's chances of returning to the White House in 2024 depend not only on Washington, where the procedure for his impeachment was launched yesterday, but also on Silicon Valley, where technology companies have launched an unprecedented attack on the US president's propaganda machine.

Their move has heated up an already heated debate about the balance between tech companies' right to censor users who violate their content policies and an individual's right to free speech.

The tech giants' decision, after last week's attack on the Capitol, to block Trump from speaking to his followers through their platforms could force him to use more traditional methods of communication during his final days in office.

However, it is certain that his messages sent in that way will not have the echo and impact they have had so far.

Twitter, Facebook, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon have taken drastic measures to limit Trump's reach, arguing that his posts incite violence.

They were joined by smaller companies including Twitch, Snapchat, Reddit, Shopify and TikTok.

Apple, Google and Amazon suspended Parler - an application where users threatened new violence.

That platform has 12 million users, and Trump's sons Donald Jr. and Eric are active on it, but now it will have to find a new internet host to replace Amazon.

Trump's critics applauded Silicon Valley's decisions, which many say should have been made sooner.

However, the "Financial Times" newspaper points out that there are a large number of those who believe that such moves show how much political power a handful of private companies actually have.

Twitter's decision to ban the US president's order was criticized yesterday by US Chancellor Angela Merkel, calling it a "problematic" violation of the "fundamental right to freedom of speech".

The intervention highlights a key area of ​​disagreement between the US and Europe over how to regulate social networking platforms. The EU wants to give regulators more powers to force internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter to remove illegal content.

In the US, tech companies are left to regulate content themselves, although political moves to limit their regulatory freedoms are gaining momentum, according to the FT.

Merkel's spokesman, Stefan Seibert, said that freedom of speech is a "fundamental right of crucial importance" that can be limited, "but only in accordance with the laws and within the framework defined by the legislator - not by the decisions of the management of social network sub-platforms".

He said that the chancellor considers it problematic that Trump's orders have been suspended indefinitely.

He pointed to Germany's online hate speech law that took effect in 2018, after which the country became a leader in efforts to regulate the internet.

That law requires social networks to remove potentially illegal content within 24 hours of being notified or face fines of up to 50 million euros.

It is considered one of the most severe Internet restrictions in the Western world.

Seibert said that, although she criticizes the suspension of the account, Merkel has no objection to the warnings of Twitter and Facebook that certain content - such as the US president's tweets about election fraud - is misleading.

He said that social media companies bear "a great responsibility to ensure that political communication is not poisoned by hatred, lies and incitement to violence." And they should not watch idly when such material is released".

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire joined the criticism of technology companies, saying that he was "shocked" by Twitter's move.

"Digital regulation should not be handled by a digital oligarch... Regulation in the digital arena is a matter for sovereign states, governments and the judiciary."

The suspension of Trump's accounts was also condemned by Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition blogger and dissident.

He called it "an unacceptable act of censorship that the Kremlin will use to justify its crackdown on dissidents.

"Twitter account banning is a decision by people we don't know following a procedure we don't know," he tweeted, adding that the decision was based on "emotions and personal political preferences."

"This precedent will be used by the enemies of freedom of speech in the world," Navalny wrote.

On the other hand, Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of Chechnya, noted that he and Trump are now united in censorship, after his Facebook and Instagram accounts were also blocked.

“Now I have something in common with Donald Trump. While he previously blocked my social media accounts, now the almighty god has retaliated justly and as a result, the accounts of the rebel Donald Trump have also been blocked," Kadyrov announced on Telegram.

There are also those who believe that companies should have reacted a long time ago.

Robert Reich, professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor in the Bill Clinton administration, said that "social media platforms are four years late.

"They allowed Trump's lies, conspiracy theories and hatred to take root. The legacy will remain with us for years," said Rajš.

The Financial Times points out that it is possible that the technology companies reacted for selfish reasons this time, trying to soften the criticism of the American Democrats, and possibly the regulatory action of the upcoming Biden administration.

Biden has previously called for an overhaul of a section of the law that protects social networks from lawsuits over content posted on their platforms.

The editor-in-chief of Deutsche Welle, Manuela Kasper-Clerridge, believes that Facebook and Twitter are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility by suspending the outgoing president's account.

"It is time to take this factual power of Facebook, Twitter and search engines like Google seriously and regulate them democratically and efficiently." Because they also have to be responsible," Kasper-Clarridge said.

"If you want freedom of speech - you have to come to terms with freedom of speech. We're not talking about hate speech or fake news now - that needs to be identified and flagged or deleted. This is the task of the platforms, which they, albeit unwillingly, have begun to perform in recent months", assessed the editor of DV.

However, shutting down his account is too easy a solution - platform operators are avoiding their responsibility, she believes.

"Even without Donald Trump, millions of fake news, hate speech and propaganda circulate on their platforms. In view of this, Twitter, Facebook and others must finally fulfill their social obligation - they must consistently delete and, if necessary, classify and identify fake news," she added.

Democrats presented a resolution to impeach Trump

The resolution to impeach US President Donald Trump due to his role in last week's demonstrations was officially presented yesterday in the House of Representatives of Congress.

In the document, presented by Democrats, Trump is accused of "inciting sedition" in connection with the violence in the Capitol.

The vote on the resolution could be held today, and Trump could be the first American president to be impeached twice.

However, House Republicans yesterday blocked a request by Democrats to consider a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to activate Article 25 of the US Constitution, which allows the vice president to remove a president who is unfit to serve.

"The House of Representatives must never pass a resolution requiring the removal of a regularly elected president without a hearing, debate or vote," said Republican Representative Alex Mooney.

Pence was in the Capitol with his family when Trump supporters attacked, and he and Trump are not on speaking terms at the moment, Reuters reported.

However, Pence and his fellow Republicans have expressed no interest in activating Amandaman, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have tried to increase pressure on them to act.

They called on Pence to make a statement within 24 hours of the adoption of the resolution.

"Our next step will be to initiate the impeachment procedure. The threat the president poses to America is urgent, and so will our action," Pelosi said in a statement.

The MPs who drew up the impeachment indictment said that they secured the support of at least 214 of the total 222 Democrats in the House of Representatives, which indicates that it will be adopted.

However, even if the House of Representatives impeaches Trump, the Senate, which is currently controlled by Republicans, will consider the impeachment at the earliest on January 19, which is Trump's last day in office.

The impeachment trial would occupy the Senate during Joe Biden's first weeks in office, preventing him from formally appointing secretaries and acting on priorities such as the economic relief package due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Democratic representative Jim Clyburn said that this problem can be avoided by sending the impeachment indictment to the Senate in a few months.

Trump would be largely out of the White House by then, but a conviction would mean he is barred from running for president again in 2024.