I think it's pretty reasonable to think Trump deserved to be deplatformed, be glad that it has happened, and yet still be uncomfortable about how it has happened.
Merkel seems to be uncomfortable with it too, even as the leader of a country with very strong interest in curtailing hate speech. This is from her spokesperson:
Quote:
|
"This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators—not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms," Seibert said. "Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked."
|
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ht/ar-BB1cEQZa
Personally, I have been really looking forward to the day that Trump's platform was closed down, but I'm not comfortable with
how it has happened either. I wish it had been something arrived at through a legal process by democratically elected representatives rather than private corporate management.
Big tech companies own the infrastructure of our intellectual world. Engagement in society depends upon access to that infrastructure. That is tremendous power to wield privately, and seeing it successfully exercised in deplatforming a head of state who is still legally in office is a bit of a disturbing demonstration of the extent of that power. Should that type of power rest in private hands?
Would it be okay for private companies to own all our roads and pathways with the power to make private decisions to stop people using them without a judicial process? If it is, would we consider being allowed to go where you want as long as it's only cross country on public lands a reasonable standard of freedom of mobility?
It seems obvious to me that Trump being silenced and removed is good for society, but these dramatic, cross-platform bans without judicial processes or involvement of elected representatives doesn't feel like rule of law either.