Overnight, the official and elected president of the United States of America was banned from most social networks. Suddenly and without introductions, Trump became unable to express his opinion or address his followers through his account in social networks such as Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and others. Most of the social networking sites announced the banning of the personal accounts of US President Trump, the accounts affiliated with him, the accounts of his election campaigns, or any accounts linked to him personally.
Such a move opens the door to many questions about the “definition” and “classification” of social networking sites and social networks. While these networks (companies) define themselves as purely technical platforms. However, the suspension of Trump’s account was an editorial decision issued by publishing companies that monitor and edit what is published and not issued by a technical platform that provides a content publishing service only. The former British Minister of Culture Tom Hancock believes that the excuse provided by Twitter (Trump’s use of words indicating his support for congressional intruders) is clear evidence that Twitter has played a clear editorial role, so it must be covered by what includes publishing houses and not technical companies. While many believe that social networking sites should play a primary role in monitoring the published content and preventing content that threatens security or incites hatred and violence.
However, the social network sites sole ability (to control) and (to arbitration) the content published on these platforms. And determine what is suitable for publishing what is not suitable for publication. It is a matter of concern. Where the European Union Commissioner Breton said that the executive director of a company to prevent the US president from expressing his opinion without any checks and balances is confusing.
Regardless of whether the silencing and banning of Trump is correct or not. However, the bigger question is, should this decision be in the hands of technology companies that have their own agendas and goals? Can these platforms still argue that they have no say in what their users post in their platforms? Will these platforms define what is true and what is wrong? Can we stand still and rely only on the goodwill of these platforms?
What is the editorial policy that prevents Trump and allows the Free Papua Movement, which is an armed separatist movement that is banned by the Indonesian government? And why is Trump banned while hundreds of online accounts are still marketing and supporting ISIS and publishing their content in Arabic until now?
The real problem is that these platforms are what define, what you can see or hear. It does determine what news will appear on the screen of our smart mobiles and what news you will not see and will not know of its occurrence. These platforms play a bigger role today than the role of technology companies or publishing platforms. These platforms define what is right and what is wrong in every matter of life.