How should Big Tech handle censorship and free speech after the U.S. Capitol insurrection?
Read/Listen to the facts and perspectives on how Big Tech has handled censorship since the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
12 MINUTE READ
I’m Tyler Boyle, and this is 'The Objective Inquirer,' an unbiased, independent and ad-free newsletter. Every article just reports the facts and perspectives on the most contested issues in politics and the media. There is no bias, narrative or partisanship. Just the news. Subscribe to this newsletter by clicking here.
This is a developing story and is up to date as of 01/13/2021.
The Facts:
Following an insurrection on the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump activist protesting unproven election irregularities and mass voter fraud on Jan. 6, Twitter, Facebook and other Big Tech companies have taken significant action towards handling speech on their platforms.
Facebook was the first platform to respond to the protesters by temporarily banning President Donald Trump from his personal Facebook and Instagram accounts hours after the U.S. Capitol insurrection. One day later, Mark Zuckerberg, president of Facebook, announced on his personal Facebook account the company would extend the block on Trump’s account, “for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”
Zuckerberg said the reasoning for the account block was because following, “the shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden.”
Zuckerberg continued by saying the company, “judged that [Trump’s posts] effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence,” which is against Facebook’s policy.
Twitter, shortly after Facebook’s initial ban on Ja. 6, announced they would be temporarily banning Trump’s personal Twitter account for at least 12 hours. Twitter was also requiring Trump to delete two tweets they deemed 'inciteful' before he was let back on the site.
Trump eventually did delete these two tweets and was allowed back on the platform 12 hours later on Jan. 7. Trump then tweeted a video of him condemning the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and committed to a “peaceful transition'“ of power to President-Elect Joe Biden (D).
However, Trump hours later tweeted he would not be attending Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20. If Trump would do this he would be the second President to not attend his predecessor’s inauguration, with the only other being John Adams in 1801 during Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration.
However, following Trump’s return to Twitter, many Twitter employees were urging the Twitter president, Jack Dorsey, to permanently ban Trump from Twitter.
On Jan. 8 Twitter did just that by announcing a permanent ban on the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account due to fear of further incitement of violence by Trump.
“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”
- Twitter statement on perminately banning the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account
Twitter and Facebook have both long allowed Trump and other world leaders to have a longer leash regarding the company’s policies towards hate speech, personal attacks and/or disinformation. Over the past year, both social media platforms have begun fact-checking or labeling Trump’s posts that are misleading and deleting posts that are potentially inciting violence.
Following the ban of Trump’s @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, Trump attempted to tweet from other accounts such as his White House Twitter account and the Trump Campaign Twitter account. This just led to those accounts being suspended.
In addition to the actions towards Trump, Twitter also banned Trump’s former United States National Security Advisor Michael Flynn who promoted a far-right conspiracy theory Q’Anon, former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell who promoted unproven voting irregularity theories and several accounts promoting the Q’Anon conspiracy theory.
Additionally, several other Big Tech companies have recently taken steps toward limiting potentially violent or inciteful speech from Trump and others since the violent attacks on the U.S. Capitol.
For example, on Jan. 8, Google announced they would be banning the social media app Parlor from their Google Play Store. The app is mostly used by conservatives and has been home to a significant far-right extremist content that has promoted violence. This includes content that led to violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6
"We're aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US… We recognize that there can be reasonable debate about content policies and that it can be difficult for apps to immediately remove all violative content, but for us to distribute an app through Google Play, we do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content."
- Google Statement on banning Parlor from the Google Play Store
Apple also notified Parlor on Jan. 8 that it was considering removing the app from the Apple App Store and gave 24 hours to send Apple a “moderation improvement plan” or the app would be removed from the App Store.
Parlor Chief Executive, John Matze, in response to the warning by Apple accused of Apple not holding Twitter, Facebook, and Apple itself to the same standards.
"Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user-generated content on Parler. By the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones. Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for."
- John Matze, Parlor Chief Executive
24 hours later Apple did end up removing Parlor from the Apple App Store and released the following statement:
To the developers of the Parler app,
Thank you for your response regarding dangerous and harmful content on Parler. We have determined that the measures you describe are inadequate to address the proliferation of dangerous and objectionable content on your app.
Parler has not upheld its commitment to moderate and remove harmful or dangerous content encouraging violence and illegal activity, and is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.
In your response, you referenced that Parler has been taking this content “very seriously for weeks.” However, the processes Parler has put in place to moderate or prevent the spread of dangerous and illegal content have proved insufficient. Specifically, we have continued to find direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action in violation of Guideline 1.1 - Safety - Objectionable Content.
Your response also references a moderation plan “for the time being,” which does not meet the ongoing requirements in Guideline 1.2 - Safety - User Generated content. While there is no perfect system to prevent all dangerous or hateful user content, apps are required to have robust content moderation plans in place to proactively and effectively address these issues. A temporary “task force” is not a sufficient response given the widespread proliferation of harmful content.
For these reasons, your app will be removed from the App Store until we receive an update that is compliant with the App Store Review Guidelines and you have demonstrated your ability to effectively moderate and filter the dangerous and harmful content on your service.
Regards, App Review Board
- Apple statement on banning Parlor from Apple App Store
Amazon also banned Parlor from AWS internet and web services on January 9 which essentially stopped Parlor from being able to function after the moves by Apple and Google. Since then, Parlor has sued Amazon for being “motivated by political aminus” and trying to “reduce competition” for the benefit of Twitter.
YouTube (owned by Google) also banned several YouTube accounts promoting Q’Anon including 2 of Steve Bannon’s, Trump’s former White House Chief Strategist, podcasts that recently had Trump’s top lawyer Rudy Giuliani on to talk about unproven mass voter fraud and election irregularities. Later, Youtube also suspended Trump’s Youtube channel for at least one week for videos that incited violence.
In addition to these Big Tech companies, several others -- such as Reddit, Pinterest, Shopify, TikTok, Snapchat and more -- have taken action towards pro-Trump content. Find some of these actions here.
However, some of these companies focus on censorship of content has not been limited only to the far-right media. On Saturday, Jan. 9 Twitter suspended the left-wing podcast Red Scare Pod’s Twitter account for no known reason. Red Scare Pod, according to The Cut is a “cultural commentary and humor podcast and contains critiques of feminism, and capitalism, from deep inside the culture they’ve spawned.”
All of this follows 3 months of Trump claiming, without evidence, of mass voter fraud and voting irregularities before and after the election that caused Trump to lose the 2020 Presidential Election. Trump’s legal team has been unsuccessful in all but one of 60+ lawsuits trying to prove the claims.
Despite this, Trump has continued to persist with his unproven accusations on his social media accounts, especially Twitter.
Leading up to the Electoral College casting their votes for the 2020 Presidential Election on Dec. 14, 2020, Trump urged Republican Governors in six different swing states to send Republican electors despite the state voting to send Democrat electors. An overwhelming majority of legal and constitutional scholars deemed this to be illegal and unconstitutional.
The Governors did not listen to Trump and sent Democrat electors to cast their votes on Dec. 14 and the former Vice-President, Joe Biden, formally won the Electoral College vote and presidency with 306 electoral votes opposed to Trump’s 232 votes.
Next, Trump turned to overturn these results on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress would meet in a joint session to certify the Electoral College results. This could be potentially done if enough congress members were to object to the results on Jan. 6 and then the House of Representatives would vote on who would be President instead.
Trump’s efforts were bound to fail since not nearly enough congress members were going to object to the results and even if there was, the House of Representatives is a Democrat majority and would undoubtedly vote for Biden to be the next President.
Trump’s next effort to overturn the 2020 Election results was to ask the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, to decertify the Electoral College results on Jan. 6 during the joint session of Congress and send the results back to the states to recertify them. Again, an overwhelming majority of legal and constitutional scholars deemed this to be illegal and unconstitutional as Pence believed as well and Pence did not attempt to do this on Jan.6.
On the same day, hundreds of pro-Trump protestors held a 'March to Save America' rally in Washington D.C. close to the U.S. Capitol to protest unproven accusation of mass voter fraud and election irregularities.
The most notable speakers at the protest included President Donald Trump, the President’s son Donald Trump Jr. and the President’s personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani.
Here are some quotes from Trump, Trump Jr. and Guiliani from the rally:
“I’m looking at this crowd here and the tens of thousands -- probably hundreds of thousand plus people here -- and you did it all without burning down buildings! You did it without ripping down churches! Without looting! I didn’t know that that was possible! According to the media, when you have a large gathering of peaceful protestors they’re supposed to burn it all down. See guys we can do it right.”
- Donald Trump Jr.
“So to those Republicans, many of which maybe voting on things in the coming hours: You have an opportunity today. You can be a hero or you can be a zero! The choice is yours but we are all watching. The whole world is watching folks. Choose wisely. Because if you just roll over if you don’t fight in the face of glaring irregularities, statistical impossibilities… That’s right guys, that’s the message. These guys better fight for Trump.”
- Donald Trump Jr.
“Guess what guys if you’re going to be the zero and not the hero, we’re coming for you and we’re going to have a good time doing it.”
- Donald Trump Jr.
“If we’re wrong we’ll look like fools, but if we’re right a lot of them [Democrats] will go to jail. So let’s have trial by combat.”
- Rudy Giuliani
“This has been a year in which they [Democrats] have invaded our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, our freedom to move, our freedom to live. I’ll be darned if they try to take away our free and fair vote. We’re going to fight to the very end to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
- Rudy Giuliani
“We will never give, we will never concede. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough and we won’t take it anymore and that what this is all about. And to use a favorite term all of you wonderful people came up with, we will ‘Stop the Steal.’”
- President Donald Trump
“We will never give up; we will never concede… We will stop the steal. We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol…We’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones…the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”
- President Donald Trump
“That election, our election was over at 10:00 in the evening. We’re leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia by hundreds of thousands of votes, and then late in the evening or early in the morning, boom, these explosions of and bullshit, and all of a sudden. All of a sudden it started to happen.”
- President Donald Trump
Approximately 1 hour later some of the same people the President was speaking to breached, raided and vandalized the U.S. Capitol building.
Many of these rioters were shouting/chanting things like “Hang Mike Pence,” “Burn it down,” “Trump won,” “1776” and more. Trump, American and Confederate flags were seen being carried by these rioters throughout the Capitol.
This was the first breach of the U.S. Capitol since 1814 where the British burned down the Capitol during the War of 1812.
Three hours after the attack, Trump took to Twitter and posted a video condemning his supporters’ violence and asked them to go home “peacefully.” Trump also said he “understood their pain,” and that he “loved them [the rioters] very much.”
Perspective #1: Pro-Censorship
For many Democrats and even some Republicans, the action taken by these Big Tech companies has been something they have encouraged for a long time. They believed the rhetoric used by Trump and many right-wing extremist accounts allowed on the platforms promoted violence and were a danger to the country.
Before this, the most prominent example of the biggest outcries for Trump to banned is when Trump sent out a tweet responding to riots taking place across America during the social justice protests after George Floyde’s death from a police officer on May 29.
Trump’s tweet, which said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” was one of the first tweets flagged by Twitter as potentially “glorifying violence,” but stated they would allow the tweet to be accessible because Twitter “determined it may be in the public’s interest for the tweet to remain accessible.”
Twitter and Facebook since this time have become more strict on moderating and flagging content on their platforms in order to combat violence and misinformation. Since this tweet in May, Trump’s tweets have been flagged as “disputed” “false” or contrary to “official sources” hundreds of times.
Calls for even stronger censorship of “false” or “potentially violent” content grew as Trump claimed, without evidence, hundreds of times on social media the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged and had mass voter fraud following Trump’s loss in November. Twitter and Facebook continued to flag these tweets as “false,” “misleading” or “disputed.”
Many who wanted these Big Tech companies to take a stronger stance towards inciting violence and false information saw these moves to be an improvement but unsatisfactory.
The breaking point came when the attack on the U.S. Capitol occurred on Jan. 6 by pro-Trump protesters and people advocating for Trump’s ban determinedly pointed to the events at the Capitol as what happens when someone like Trump is allowed to propagate false information and incite violence without real consequences.
Many pro-banners state if companies like Twitter and Facebook would continue to allow “inciteful” speech and “misinformation” to spread on their platforms more events like the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol will take place.
They also argue these companies have the right to do this because they are private companies and they are allowed to refuse service to anyone who does not follow their terms of service.
In addition to this, many pro-banners point to the 1919 Schenk v. The United States Supreme Court case in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre,” and the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio Supreme Court case which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite “imminent lawless action,” such as a riot.
Many pro-banners are advocating for even harsher censorship of accounts and content that incite violence or spread misinformation. Since many pro-banners are Democrats, they typically are pointing to far-right extremist content.
They argue this is because, while they believe Trump played a large part in Jan. 6’s events, allowing other larger platforms to propagate this type of information is dangerous and will lead to more violence if not stopped.
Perspective #2: Anti-Censorship
While an overwhelming majority of anti-censorshipers agree that the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was terrible, many are worried an overreaction to this historic event could lead society to an Orwellian state (an authoritarian and/or totalitarian society in which not all speech is protected, especially speech that is critical of powerful interests like the government).
The biggest fear from anti-censorshipers is that these monopolized Big Tech companies have so much power they essentially act as governments themselves and are almost required to have to live in the modern digital age. Consequently, they fear this could lead to Big Tech having more power than they already have and limit the speech of anyone that has ideas contrary to the narratives these companies believe in.
Many anti-censorshipers point to a recent incident just days before the 2020 Presidential Election in which Twitter and Facebook took steps to censor a New York Post article that reported on Hunter Biden’s (Joe Biden’s son) business dealing in Ukraine and China and his father’s potential involvement in these deals.
Twitter and Facebook restricted or censored this story at first because they believed it was possibly disinformation. However, it was proven shortly later the story was true. Next, Twitter announced they limited the distribution of the story because of a 'hacked material' policy. Many saw this explanation as problematic because, if this was Twitter’s policy, they had poorly enforced it against left-leaning media outlets. Both Twitter and Facebook came out later stating they regretted how they handled the situation.
One journalist who was strongly against the censorship on Trump and others was Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald has another argument against more censorship. He points to overreactions by the U.S. government and the American public in the past, specifically to 9/11, and how these overreactions resulted in less freedom for U.S. citizens while still not solving the actual problems.
Most politicians and U.S. citizens, Greenwald argues, agreed on stronger security and a war on terror in the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks.
However, Greenwald notes this resulted in a war in the Middle East where thousands of Americans have died and many now believe that 9/11 was used as an excuse to get into a war for more oil and/or to benefit the military-industrial complex.
In addition, Greenwald points out the U.S.A Patriot Act that was put in place shortly after 9/11 resulted in the U.S. government illegally surveilling innocent Americans as former NSA and CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed in 2013. Furthermore, many in the past have also argued the Patriot Act has allowed Big Tech companies, like Google, Facebook and Twitter, too much power by allowing them to collect large amounts of data from its users.
Greenwald also notes that the few who did argue against the war in the Middle East and the U.S.A Patriot Act at the time were seen as unpatriotic or sympathetic to terrorists. However, in the long run, Greenwald and most others believe, these people were right to not overreact to the situation or using it as an excuse to enforce a certain agenda.
Greenwald argues this could be the same case with the unprecedented censorship taking place right now with these Big Tech companies. He and others believe this is an overreaction that could result in the loss of many people’s right to free speech if they do not conform to powerful interests’ narratives or ideas.
In addition to this, many argue by censoring and/or banning more content online is taking away many people’s right to free speech while ignoring the actual sources of the problem: Big Tech and the media.
First, many anti-censorshipers argue Big Tech’s business model (specifically social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook) is based on addiction, monopolization and surveillance for the sake of more advertising revenue. This leads to these platforms developing their artificial intelligence programs to be prioritizing hate, extremism, and misinformation in order to get their users more addicted to their apps, leading to more advertisement revenue. Anti-censorshipers want Big Tech to fix these algorithms rather than censor more people.
In addition, many anti-censorshipers blame the media for focusing their reporting on a business model based on division and conflict rather than reporting the news objectively and unbiasedly. Some anti-censorshipers argue these media outlets are using their platforms now to point the finger at people like Donald Trump or Big Tech when, in reality, they should be putting at least some of the blame on themselves.
Also, others worry deplatforming a person like the President of the United States is dangerous because it is important for the public to know, through the president’s perspective, what is going on in the world. For reference, President Trump has routinely used Twitter throughout his presidency to announce international trade deals, his position on certain legislative issues and more.
What some are most scared of though about the recent banning of President Trump off Twitter is that if President Trump can be banned off Twitter and censored, that means, in their view, these platforms can ban anyone off their platform that they see as a threat
Lastly, anti-censorshipers are worried about the hypocrisy Big Tech is displaying on this issue. They are dumbfounded by how Donald Trump is deplatformed while other world leaders, like Mohammed bin Salman of Saudia Arabia, is allowed to use these platforms while committing mass genocide.
What both sides can agree on: Media and Big Tech Responsibility & Anti-violence
Most people on both sides can agree on two things.
First, mass media platforms and Big Tech mediums like Twitter, Facebook and others deserve at least some part of responsibility for the events on Jan. 6. Whether this be social media platforms not doing a good job at restricting violent or inciteful content, social media platforms financially benefiting off hate and misinformation or their media’s business model focusing on division and hate of the other side, most can agree that mass media needs to change.
Secondly, most can agree platforms like Twitter and Facebook should be allowed to ban or censor content promoting or inciting violence as these companies are private companies and a company should have the right to not let their company become a nest for terrorists, rioters, looters, etc.