In this regard, the accounts of the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, have been blocked on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, among others, following the riots on Capitol Hill. The reason? Trump allegedly said in front of thousands of people in Washington that he would never concede victory to his rival because of election fraud; moreover, he harangued his followers to do ‘something memorable’ on the day of Joe Biden’s confirmation as president . Following the same line, Snapchat and Youtube announced that it was all “in the interest of public safety” and for Trump’s attempts “ to spread disinformation and incite violence”. “We believe that the risks of allowing the president to continue using our service simply child too great”, explained Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook.
Are we then faced with an exogenous power with economic interests opposed to the officialism? Surely these huge, rich corporations, which are no longer satisfied with being oligopolies over one of the few highly profitable industries left, will not stop seeking to accumulate political power for their own ends.
Child just another tool for co-opting political power by opposition groups? In this sense, Michelle Obama asked the platforms of social networks to permanently block Trump’s accounts. ” Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop allowing this monstrous behavior and go beyond what they have done by permanently banning this man from their platforms, establishing policies to prevent the nation’s leaders from using their technology to fuel the insurrection”, the former first lady argued vehemently and with very little care. Surely she has not reflected that the obstructive discourse could lead to a boomerang that could also impact the newly elected Democratic government
Do they represent the champions of an imaginary world of which they consider the ideal, the ‘new paradise on earth’? The technological elite love to appear as the policy maker of ethical altruism–especially progressive. If we don’t remember how in 2018 Naomi Buchwald, a New York district judge, determined that journalism, a violation of freedom of expression, would be blocked — precisely by a social activist — by @realDonaldTrump, the individual Twitter account used daily by the now ex-president of the United States.
In short, one would have to be on their boards of directors and in the heads of the shareholders of the big technology companies to be able to deduce the reasons for this historic decision; there is probably a bit of everything. In the meantime, the debate has already begun. Some will wonder what right these companies have to close the accounts, that is, to decide what the democratically elected president of a country should or should not say. Moreover, Zuckerberg added that Trump’s decision to “use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters in the Capitol building has rightly upset people in the United States and around the world.
Several questions arise from this: What is the fine line between what is contrary to the common good and how do they decide that an account is terrorist, a public health hazard, or ‘too much’ right or left? Is ‘Fighting Capital’ then dangerous because it would go against the very interests of these technology corporations? Should those who promote e