Twitter (Censorship in The Digital Age)

It is the year 2 020. We are a month away from one of the hugest elections of all time in any country. Tech giants have announced plans to limit what kind of information, such as as political ads, that they will allow on their platforms. While this may seem like a good idea on the surface, it is also a form of censorship that takes away the power of people to look up what an ad states for themselves.

That being said, let's look at what has been going on with Twitter. Last week the website reported an issue where many accounts were unjustly locked or suspended. It looks like that trend is going to be a weekly occurance leading up to Election Day (Nov. 3rd). It is well known conservatives have complained about having their "right to free speech" taken away from them, which is not true, but it is also a reasonable argument.

The first reason why I believe it is a reasonable claim for them to make is because they are the first people to be booted off sites such as Twitter just for asking questions that people report as being harmful or encouraging violence against others. Meanwhile, people on the left side of the political spectrum have been allowed to keep their accounts when they have called for burning places down. The second reason why it is a claim with merit has more to deal with the fact that there isn't one set of rules that are enforced by Twitter. The rules seem to be seen as just picking cherries at a cherry farm. The people responsible for ensuring people follow the TOS (Terms of Service) do not seem to be public information either. How can people trust social media apps if they do not even adhere to a policy of equal treatment towards everyone no matter what their political views may be?

For example, someone can ask a question of someone based on their own tweet(s) and get reported for doing so. If enough people report the person who asked the question, Twitter will either give them a warning, which limits what they can do as far as liking, replying to, or retweeting other tweets. But if the person has been reported before, and served a seven day ban, even if it was unjust, Twitter will suspend that account while the original poster keeps their own without removing any tweets

It is appalling, really, that we have come to a place in America where big companies can override the rights of private citizens simply because of whether or not they agree with who posted a remark. This is not saying private companies do not have a right to decide what they allow to be said on their platforms, but at least be consistent about it. It is disgraceful that someone like Richard B. Spencer, who is banned from Facebook, has found a home on Twitter for his hate speech and his outrageous ideology. If Jack and his closest advisors want to make it (Twitter) a better place, then they need to remove all hateful remarks no matter who says them, and not give a podium to white nationalists or other hate groups while deplatforming people that not a lot of people know about simply because they offended someone else who may or may not have a white and blue checkmark by their name.

In closing, it seems like we have learned from the book burnings that took place in Alexandria and Germany. Social App creators and the people who they trust to maintain decorum on them (the apps) need to be held responsible for acting more like selective publishers instead of purveyors of free thought. You cannot allow speech for one set of people while also stifling the voice of others.