Yesterday, an Oversight Board from Facebook reaffirmed the ban that the social media site had placed on Donald Trump's account after his connection to the events of January 6th at the Capitol. The board "did not find an indefinite suspension justified" because no such punishment was listed in any Facebook policy, so the board gave Facebook six months to make a final decision. Facebook will have the opportunity to create a standardized plan to address similar situations and decide on whether to un-suspend the account or ban it permanently.
Many people have claimed the account suspension to be an oppression of one's 1st amendment right to free speech. However, others have argued that networks like Facebook have the ability to create their own policies that people who decide to opt-in to the terms and use the platforms must adhere to. The problem is that when a site becomes nearly ubiquitous as a means of communication (like Facebook has), the platform and the activity on it gains immense influence.
That's not Facebook's fault, but it is Facebook's responsibility to maintain a positive, truthful, and safe atmosphere for all of its users. Where does a network draw the line between allowing certain speech and censoring it? I advocate for tighter speech restrictions on accounts that are above a certain level of popularity. These high popularity accounts have much more influence on the types of actions that Facebook wants to prevent, and should therefore be held to a higher standard.
Questions:
1. Should social networking sites be able to censor/ban certain accounts?
2. Is the suspension of Donald Trump's account a violation of his rights?
3. IF you support the idea of reducing the power/influence of large tech companies like Facebook, what are some ways to do that?
17 comments:
I believe that Facebook has the right and power to hold decide who and how long to ban a person. All users of the application must agree to the terms and services. Trump violated the terms and services well in office. I do feel that his first amendment may have been violated but he was also preaching harm to the government. It seems that he was presenting a clear and present danger.
I think that social networking sites and social media should be able to ban certain accounts if its clear that those accounts are either committing crimes or causing trouble online in whatever ways that may be. It is the job of social media to make sure everyone feels safe on their platform, and I believe they should remove any accounts that make a group of individuals feel unsafe or any accounts that contribute to things like racism. I do not believe that the suspension of Trump's account violates rights since Trump was encouraging violence on the platform and threatened the safety and security of groups and individuals on the platform with hate speech and violence. I do think we should reduce the influence of any social companies though, since they have allowed users to cause a lot of harm to others emotionally and have not been great at monitoring activity on their site. I would suggest harsher government regulation on the tech companies in order to force them to remove fake information and propaganda as well as ban or restrict users who spread misinformation as that can be harmful. Thank you for sharing!
Donald Trump isn't just any person with a social media account. I think because he has such a large following with such great influence, his actions warrant this kind of response from facebook. Similar to how Alex Jones' InfoWars was banned, Trump's spreading of fake news is dangerous, and especially with his tweets during the election, he is abusing his first amendment right.
Social networking sites should definitely be able to ban accounts. The platforms should be able to ban users that either encourage violence like Trump, especially because he has such a large reach. If there are users that have either committed crimes or spread hate, the platform would be better off without them. The suspension of Trump's twitter account is not a violation because he was inciting violence and hate on twitter.
I think that social networking sites should be able to ban and censure anyone they please. If it isn't illegal and they don't find it to be hurting their company, then yes, they should be able to do what ever they want within those means. After all it is a business, and they own the platform at the end of the day. Is the ban an infringement on his rights, no. Freedom of speech is a interesting right to have, but I don't think that it pertains to this situation. lets say a man jumped on stage at a concert, and he started babbling about what ever he wanted to. When it comes down to it, the people who are paying for that platform for the stage get to choose who is on it. That is how I see this situation.The only way to weaken the power social media has on us, is to stop using the apps. We care way too much about what is going on, on our phones then a lot of other important things in our lives. We need to take back the power.
I think social networking sites definitely have the right to ban accounts if users violate the terms of agreement that they agree to when creating the account. Many famous individuals have been banned of other social media sites, such as instagram, but I think the reason this possible ban is a bigger deal is because of the influence and controversy that surrounds Trump. I don’t really think this is a violation of his rights because most laws apply to public property or places, however, many brick and mortar business have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It would make sense that this same rule would apply to online businesses, like Facebook. For the question of reducing the power of large companies, I think the answer to that lies in data collection and privacy laws - the less facebook knows about us, the less they can take advantage of us.
I think that if the terms and conditions have been broken by a user, regardless of their status, their account should receive consequences. Especially, in this situation, with Trump's large following his breaching of the terms of service through false information in tweets could cause lots of damage. Donald Trump's rights were not violated because facebook has all the power to ban him due to him breaking the rules. Its not a violation of his rights if hes just receiving punishment he deserves. And although companies like facebook already have some hooks on our personal information and reduction in power of tech companies size of facebook would be difficult, its entirely possible and needed.
I believe that facebook has every right to suspend or ban any account they want from their service. The first amendment protects the right to speak in general--for example, protesting on the street or wearing clothes with messages on them--but as we learned in class, it is not an absolute right. As an analogy, you can think of facebook as a big starbucks where you can hang out and chat. They want people to come bc it gives them revenue, but the moment you break their rules, they have no obligation to let you stay. There is nobody stopping Trump from going out and speaking on his own, independent from any social media company (which if I'm not mistaken, he's already started doing), so therefore none of his rights have been violated.
I agree with your statement that these accounts have to be held to a higher standard than other accounts, as they have more influence with a bigger platform. Facebook should impose more restrictions on accounts like these, because Trump's posts/other actions clearly violated their terms and services. And while people should have the right to free speech, there is a certain extent to which this right should be upheld, as many forms of speech can lead to severe consequences. In this case, the lies that Trump spread across not only platforms like Facebook led to the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6. Additionally, private companies like Facebook reserve the right to ban any individual, as they are not bound by the First Amendment. When someone's presence on social media presents danger to others, their rights should be restricted. Just like Facebook and other platforms like Twitter have the right to ban users for violating their community guidelines, it is justified for them to limit the social media/networking rights of figures like Trump.
I think you are correct when you say that these higher popularity accounts should have more restriction on what they can say as they influence a much greater number of people. But I also think that it should be able to influence for good things that are much less political. The suspension of Donald Trump's account was not a violation of his rights as he pushed his followers to be violent and break the law. Restricting the influence of companies like Facebook is very difficult and the media controls the world nowadays so I'm not sure it is possible or going to happen.
Just like restaurants saying they have the right to not serve people, facebook in that same way can choose whether or not they want to allow people on their platform. Although this may sound like a violation of freedom of speech I think it isn't because Facebook isn't a government company.If I wanted to reduce facebook's power I would offer other ways for people to communicate and get news out there. The only problem is facebook is so dominant in the field of communications where I think the only way about this situation is to use facebook as an ally.
Facebook isn't some government agency. Banning Trump is totally up to them. I'd rather it be a prolonged maybe not so moral ban than another attack on the capitol.
This ban was not only legally constitutional but also justified. Firstly, as other commenters have pointed out, Facebook (amongst other social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram) are private companies. Therefore, they have the right to suspend the accounts of those who spread misinformation. As shown by the attack on the capital, the promotion of misinformation on social media has dangerous consequences that can alter systems as powerful as the American government & democracy, and therefore Facebook is doing the right thing by closely monitoring and suspending accounts that pose a threat.
Additionally, I agree with Lucy Yin. Those will larger followings on social media have a lot more influence on others and therefore definitely need to be held by a higher standard.
Similar to the commenters above, I agree that Facebook does reserve the right to censor speech that violates the guidelines they outline in their terms and conditions, which all users are subject to. Trump’s usage of his platform to spread dangerous and false information jeopardized the lives of so many Americans on January 6th, which many of the commenters above notably emphasized. If Facebook did not act in this situation, a similar and even more catastrophic incident might occur in the future. Though much easier said than done, public figures’ social media should be monitored, as the size of their platforms have the capacity to influence so many. It is crucial to ensure they exercise the power of their influence thoughtfully.
Again, this is not a "hot take" in the slightest, but Facebook does have every right to ban users and moderate their content as per their terms of conditions. I find it incredibly ironic that many Americans on the far right campaign for the rights of companies and for a laissez faire economy and yet here most of them are complaining that social media companies are exercising those rights granted under a laissez faire tech economy. Strange. In addition to above, again banning Trump from most social media is not a violation of his rights. The First Amendment only protects the individual right to free speech from the government, not from independent software companies.
However, I do support limiting the power that social media like Facebook has over its users, particularly in regards to selling their information to advertisers. While I'm aware that it is the only possible way for these social media companies to make money, I believe that the amount of free collection and distribution social media companies have over the personal information of their users is far too unregulated and should be taken as a violation of privacy law.
Social networking sites should have the right to ban whoever on their website or stick to their terms. Trump used his account and platform to inform the people on negative and untrue information where many people reacted to. I believe that being cautious of big influencers because they sway a lot of influence on their followers and platform.
I do think that social network sites should be able to ban accounts for whatever the reason may be. Whether they are misusing the app, being controversial, or not following the app guidelines, it should be allowed.I do think it was a violation of rights because he did what any other person does, but I o think he use his account in the wrong way. He used his platform to spread negativity and with his position of power, he should not have done nor said such things.
Post a Comment