Donald Trump, Ostensible Republican, Says He May ‘Close Down’ America’s Social Media Platforms

Donald Trump, Ostensible Republican, Says He May ‘Close Down’ America’s Social Media Platforms

Earlier this month, Donald Trump lashed out at the same social media platforms which helped him win the 2016 election, charging Google, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter with being puppets of "the Radical Left". It was hardly the first time the president has attacked America's most valuable companies, each of which affords Trump the opportunity to inject his patented brand of balderdash directly into the veins of the voting public whenever he chooses, which is generally all day, every day. Durin
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

25 thoughts on “Donald Trump, Ostensible Republican, Says He May ‘Close Down’ America’s Social Media Platforms

  1. The damage is already done once he intimidates people. The goal is not to shut them down but to affect, even in the smallest way, their behavior. The excuse he cannot do that is ignoring the power of the bully’s threats to change behavior. I think the reason some people are drawn to him is that they identify with him as they are a bully in their own right. To see the tactics, they employ in their own life, employed on a grander stage is to give them hope they have lived right all these years. However typically the stuff catches up to the bully and this bully will be no different. It will catch up and catch his children who have surfed in his wake for years.

    1. They are private companies. Period. There’s no ambiguity here. It’s the same reason Alex Jones was booted. And Jacob Wohl. Etc. Twitter is a private company with its own set of rules. The term “platform” makes zero difference. They can ban people from participating whenever they deem it necessary to protect the interests of other users and their enjoyment of the site. And there isn’t anything anyone can do about that. It clearly states when you sign up that if you break the platform’s rules, you can be banned. By clicking “accept”, you have acquiesced to those terms. You have no say in the matter. That’s just all there is to it.

      1. That is great. I don’t care, I don’t use the platform but I want to see them face Anti-trust scrutiny then. They are basically in-kind contributions to the Democratic campaign, they need to start reporting as such.

        1. Except that Facebook and Twitter are arguably the single-most important campaign tool(s) that Donald Trump has. The contention that these platforms are “biased” against Trump is laughable considering how successful he is at leveraging them for votes. If you take away Twitter and Facebook, his campaign strategy would be upended overnight.

          1. Quite correct Mr. H – “MrSomebody” sure isn’t a “MrWonderful” of any kind….

          2. Cambridge Analytica’s stealing and misuse of FB data, along with Russia’s social media campaigns, probably made the difference when it came to electing Trump. He shouldn’t be biting the hand that feeds him.

  2. France bans hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 amid safety concerns….does anyone In their right mind believe that Trump took this drug? Just lies and distraction from the orange Oz.

    1. Hydroxychloroquine, commonly known as Plaquenil, is a commonly used drug for rheumatoid arthritis. He might have already been taking Plaquenil and just “spun” the facts.
      My mom takes Plaquenil and so far- she has not gotten Covid-19. It must work!!! Haha

    2. Hydroxychloroquine, commonly known as Plaquenil, is a rheumatoid arthritis drug.
      Trump might have been taking Plaquenil, found out that it is hydroxychloroquine and pit a “spin” on the facts.

      My mom takes Plaquenil and when the story came out that hydroxychloroquine was the “miracle cure” there was a run on that drug at her local CVS. Doctors were prescribing it to themselves. To their credit, CVS only filled that prescription for existing patients. I do not know what the CVS policy is now.

      I agree with Ria. You can not make this stuff up.

  3. The problem is that it is not as simple as saying social media companies are privately owned corporations and therefore, they have the right to police who is on their platforms and what those people can say. While it is undeniably true that these companies are private corporations, their products have become something akin to the public square and the spirit of “freedom of speech” legislation is that no entity should have the right to shut down public discourse (outside of some very narrow exceptions).

    In the past, the only entity that would be powerful enough to do so would be the government, because they could use their police powers to censor or shut down public discourse. However, with the advent of the internet and social media, the forum for public discourse has (mostly) migrated from the physical world to internet and that has given these private companies powers that previous were the domain only of the government. This is the root cause of much of the back and forth over “free speech”. While Twitter or Facebook silencing users on their platforms does not run afoul of any legislation protecting free speech, it clearly cuts against the intent of that legislation. This is even more outrageous because it is an unaccountable private entity exercising this power, rather than the democratically elected government.

    One way for social media companies to deal with this would be to take an openly editorial approach, where they curate the content available in the way traditional print publications do. However, they are loath to take this step because it would strip them of the pretense of being a common carrier, and the protection that affords them against responsibility for the content that is posted to their platforms. This is the reason for Twitter’s mealy mouthed approach to Trump’s tweets, they don’t want to take them down because that would be an exercise of editorial control, but at the same time they need to appease the very large number of people disgusted by said tweets.

    Ultimately, I think the social media companies are in an untenable position. They are either going to have to exercise editorial control over the content on their platform, thereby accepting responsibility for all of the content posted to their platforms, or else they will have to ignore the outrage generated by users that post content like Trump’s tweets. They appear to be going down the path of exercising editorial control, but only reluctantly. However, moving down this path is going to open them up to a lot more scrutiny about the content hosted on their platforms, while at the same time alienating large chunks of their userbase as a result of their editorial decisions (whatever they may be).

    1. You can’t really claim that because a company has become ubiquitous, it’s now tantamount to a platform protected by the Constitution. In some cases (this one being an example) that effectively punishes success. Also, equating the removal of blatant lies with “editorial decisions” is a bit dubious in my opinion. Lies are just lies. They are almost always pernicious outside the realm of letting small children believe in Santa Claus and other magic.

      1. I never made the argument that content posted to social media platforms was legally protected speech under the Constitution. Clearly, it isn’t. The point I made was that saying that these are private corporations and they can do what they want is overly simplistic. The people who created our legal framework never envisioned a situation where private corporations would be able to exercise broad powers of censorship over a large portion of the public discourse. Previously, only governments had the capability to do this, so it wasn’t something that was addressed.

        With regards to censoring lies, this is absolutely an exercise in editorial control. First, you’re making an editorial decision about what constitutes a lie. This quickly gets murky once you get outside of statements like 2+2=4. Then you’re making an editorial decision about which lies to censor. To use your example, I doubt that Facebook would want to start censoring posts relating to Santa Claus. However, in deciding which lies to censor and which ones are “okay”, they’re excising editorial control.

        What I am trying to point out is that much of the success of the social media companies’ success has been based on exploiting a loophole in our legal framework. They’ve positioned themselves more or less as common carriers or neutral platforms, and therefore unaccountable for the content that is posted to their platforms. This allowed them to grow quickly as platforms for the exchange of ideas, information, and content.

        Everybody was fine with that arrangement when it was all about sharing stupid cat photos, oversharing details of your personal life, posting photos of the family trip to Florida that nobody really cares about. It turns out, people are very much not okay with that arrangement when it comes to the dissemination of news or as a forum for political discourse.

        So now, the social media companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either tolerate the outrage that comes with hosting content people find objectionable or else start censoring content based on some decision-making process (i.e. exercise editorial control) that they put in place. If they do nothing, they’ll face increasing criticism over being a platform for disseminating content that many people objectionable. If they start exercising editorial control, then they are no longer a neutral platform just hosting content and they’ll face all kinds of criticism over those decisions. In addition, they will face criticism over the fact that a private corporation is exercising pseudo-governmental powers regulating the public discourse.

        1. If I’m not mistaken, unlike a newspaper or a news broadcast, Facebook, Twitter, et al, can not be held libelous for content. It’s a complicated and slippery, legal slope. The world would be better off if it all went away.

          1. So far, that has been the case, but the reason for that is that social media companies have (so far) successfully argued in court that they’re essentially common carriers or neutral platforms and therefore not responsible for the content they host. This is why, so far, they have been so reluctant to remove content (outside of things that clearly illegal).

            If they begin to remove content that they find merely objectionable (rather than outright illegal), then they are performing an editorial function, just traditional print and broadcast media companies do. Once they start doing that, they are in effect taking responsibility for all the content hosted on their platform.

            For them, this would be opening Pandora’s Box. It makes it basically impossible for them to argue in court that they are just a neutral platform for hosting content. They are (rightfully) worried that this will make them subject to the same laws and jurisprudence that apply to broadcast and print media. At which point, they will have to take a much more active role in editing and curating the content. This will both diminish their value proposition for users (they’re no longer an open platform for spreading information and ideas, but rather a platform for sharing information and ideas that the corporations find acceptable) as well as subject them to all kinds of scrutiny about how much power this grants them and how they wield it.

        2. The fact is the social media platforms didn’t really do the positioning, Congress did. In order to keep from stifling the growth of the Internet, something they perceived as an important national asset, they passed legislation early on that said in effect that libel laws don’t apply to the Internet, effectively making it a wild west free-for-all. Say anything you want, anywhere you want, without consequence. We have already had various sites protected from liability in court, even when it could be argued that what somebody said on the site could be construed as causing the death of another individual. Interestingly enough, the SCOTUS has ruled that free speech is not really free in some contexts. Companies, governments, universities and others can discharge employees whose speech they don’t agree with. People who speak on the web can’t be sued for liable, but if they are someone’s employee the employer can fire that individual for speech they deem damaging to the company. Ironic, huh?

  4. What would Trump do, while sitting on his golden bathroom throne or laying around in his XXXL lounge ware, without Twitter. Laughable but Amazon should be broken up. Its retail division is a loss leader that has wreaked havoc in the retail sector and has cost tens of thousands of jobs and billions in loses. Let it stand on its own. And I’d be remiss in not hoping his children inhabit cells right down the cell block from his.

  5. But if he closes FB and TWTR what will the Russian bots use to disseminate lies and help Trump win? He knows this, he won’t close anything, plus without Twitter the idiot may have to pretend working or go golfing more often to occupy his time (and risk criticism)

  6. Incidentally, it would help if Congress actually comes with a plan next time they decide to call these legendary geniuses up to Capitol Hill.

    I’m not a Zuckerberg fan, but I got a pretty good laugh out of it when he finally figured out that the best way to push back on Congress, was to simply call their bluff by saying “I agree. We need regulation. Now you just tell me how it will work, and I’ll implement it”.

    That’s not an exact quote, but that was the gist of the approach he ended up taking. To nobody’s surprise, it turns out Congress had no clue.

    1. I’d start by
      – Requiring max efforts to block bots
      – Identifying country of each member (there’s ways to do this) and including in post
      – Limiting number of posts/day by a member
      – Limiting number of shares/retweets of a post

      Analogy to controlling a virus – testing, reducing speed of transmission, and suppressing R.

      The original purpose of Facebook – for people to keep in touch with their friends/family/social groups – doesn’t require bots, anonymity/false identity, virality, high volume posting.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints