Donald Trump has used social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to infiltrate the White House and evade journalistic control while in office by speaking directly to his constituents via social media megaphones.
For the past two years, however, Trump has been silenced after several platforms banned him from using his tools after he was accused of inciting unrest.
So far: After Twitter lifted Trump’s ban last year, Meta, which controls Facebook and Instagram, also said it would allow Trump to return.
“In general, we do not want to stand in the way of open, public and democratic debate on the Meta platforms – especially in the context of elections in democratic societies like the US,” said Nick Clegg, a former UK Deputy Prime Minister. Minister and President of Meta Global Affairs in a statement announcing the change. “The public needs to be able to hear what their politicians say – the good, the bad and the ugly – so they can make informed decisions in elections.”
Trump can return to Facebook and Instagram under certain conditions: he was given red lines, including a ban on posting “content that delegitimizes the upcoming election or is associated with QAnon.” He will also be under close surveillance and receive warnings – and his range will be limited – if he breaks the rules.
This decision was not approved by content moderation and fake news experts.
“Deplatforming Trump will never fully address the much larger sociopolitical problems he poses,” said Abby Richards, a research fellow at the Acceleration Research Consortium, which studies the spread of disinformation on social media.
Richards acknowledges that much more work will be needed to address the broader issues that Trump has brought to the political world and how he has ignored social norms and destroyed the idea of decency and truth in office. “But having him reinstated certainly seems like a step in the wrong direction,” she added.
Richards believes Trump’s reinstatement is only fueling these issues and fueling divisions in social media and politics rather than solving them.
Not everyone has this opinion: they I understands that the oversight panel, which issued a non-binding response to the decision and said it would be monitoring how the tech company deals with Trump and others who use social media to try to divide and win over their political population, believes endless bans are open public figures is not a viable option. That’s why the Meta had to do something, people think.
The Supervisory Board is an independent body that oversees Meta’s decision making.
However, Richards believes the Meta had more in mind when she was chosen than just her role as the arbiter of online social discourse. “Trump and the ads he brings on Facebook and Instagram are profitable,” she says. “This decision appears to be in the interest of profit rather than in the interest of building a healthy democratic society.”
The principle is simple, she adds. “Political divisions and outright misinformation are very effective in getting people to click. Outrage is extremely beneficial for the platforms it is hosted on.”
Sarah T. Roberts, professor of content moderation at UCLA, also sees her role in the Meta’s solution. “The Meta announcement makes it clear that there are several guiding principles beyond profit; of course, none of them will replace him,” she says.
“A cynic like me might notice that these so-called social media companies are hardly acting in the public interest, but much more in the immediate vicinity of the next conference call, which is only a few days away for Meta,” says Roberts. . . decision time “accidentally for fidelity”.
However, the Meta had to act: the two-year suspension, retroactive to January 7, 2021, had ended, and the company had to make a decision one way or another.
In many ways, this was painful to do. The power of social media has become so important that politicians are doing everything they can to control it, dismissing its attempts to remain impartial, arguing that the algorithms that promote content and present it to users are biasing their site and amplifying someone else’s. Whichever direction the Meta goes, there is likely to be a huge backlash.
As for Trump himself, as one would expect, he does not remain silent for long. Last night, he didn’t post on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, but on Truth Social, a free speech alternative he promoted that is owned by the Trump Media & Technology Group, a company founded by Trump himself. “This should never happen again to a sitting president or anyone else who doesn’t deserve retribution!”
Notably, he did not say if he would accept Meta’s offer to return to their platforms.
Source: I News
With a background in journalism and a passion for technology, I am an experienced writer and editor. As an author at 24 News Reporter, I specialize in writing about the latest news and developments within the tech industry. My work has been featured on various publications including Wired Magazine and Engadget.