January-February Issue IV

opinion 3
+
Following
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Graphics and design by Trisha Yun‘24
Beyond The capitol: Twitter’s
suspension of donald trump
By GRACE HALAK ‘22
On Friday, January 8, 2021,
Twitter officially announced
its permanent suspension
of Donald Trump’s account
(@realDonaldTrump). This
decision came two days after the insurrection
in Washington D.C. when a mob
of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol
complex in an attempt to overturn the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
On the morning of the riots on January
6, Trump gave a speech in which
he repeated unfounded claims of election
fraud and urged his supporters to “show
strength” and “fight much harder.” Violence
and destruction then followed. In this
context, Twitter determined that two of
Trump’s tweets from January 8 could potentially
incite more violence and thus violated
their Glorification of Violence policy.
Many conservatives and Trump
supporters reacted to the suspension
with outrage, claiming the action
was a violation of the First Amendment
and an attack on free speech.
As constitutional scholars were
quick to point out, the First Amendment
only applies to government censorship.
Therefore, Twitter, a private company,
has every right to set terms and conditions
and suspend users accordingly.
However, the question still remains:
Even if Twitter’s suspension of Trump was
constitutional, was it the right decision?
In my opinion, it was absolutely
necessary considering the immediate situation:
the aftermath of a violent attack
on the nation’s capital. Twitter assessed
the situation, determined that Trump’s
Twitter account threatened the incitement
of further violence, and took action.
What’s more concerning, however,
are the broader implications that this singular
suspension has on social media’s
power to influence politics as a whole.
From the beginning of his 2016 presidential
campaign, Trump took advantage
of Twitter and used it like no other political
leader had before. By speaking through a
public, unfiltered forum, he discarded the
detached formalities of traditional governance
and used colloquial, inflammatory
language to shape American politics.
This use of language fueled Trump’s
base of popular support. People felt more
connected to him. Twitter became the
main channel of communication between
President Trump and the American public
and a central platform in American
politics. Therefore, Twitter’s suspension
of Trump’s account was incredibly significant
as it served to essentially cut
him off from America and the world.
This is concerning because Twitter’s
business model places enormous power
in the hands of the individuals that run
it. In such circumstances, political discourse
becomes essentially controlled by
a handful of executives, who base their
decisions on their terms and conditions,
and on the public and economic pressures
that govern corporations everywhere.
The New York Times phrased it well,
describing Twitter and other social media
companies as “corporate autocracies
masquerading as mini-democracies.”
The suspension could also have
further consequences on the world of
politics. Some dissatisfied conservatives,
angry with Twitter for suspending
Trump, have threatened to migrate to other
social media platforms, such as Parler.
Regardless of whether there’s a significant
migration, there’s no doubt that the
suspension and the ensuing controversy
have intensified political division online.
Yphtach Lelkes is an assistant professor
of communication at the University
of Pennsylvania. In a Philadelphia Inquirer
article from January, Lelkes noted
the increase in political discourse online.
“There’s been a splintering of the
public’s attention, “ said Lelkes. “It’s
been happening for 30 years, with the
rise of Fox News and talk radio. It’s
self-reinforcing and has just sped up.”
If social media platforms become politicized
and distrusted by certain groups,
the already-prevalent tendency for social
media users to place themselves in
“bubbles” of similar opinions
will continue to escalate.
This phenomenon will
go much further than algorithms
that provide users with
content that only reinforces
their beliefs, or the power of the
“block” or “mute” buttons to
erase a dissenting opinion with one
click. Entire platforms could become
controlled by one group of people
with the same beliefs, eliminating
impartial spaces on the Internet and turning
discussion forums into echo chambers.
This is already happening on Twit-
ter. A 2019 Pew Research Center report
found that only 10% of all U.S. adult
Twitter users generated 97% of all tweets
about American politics. Of the Twitter
users who tweeted about politics,
72% strongly disapproved of Trump.
Although Twitter may seem like a broad
sampling of viewpoints, in reality, its political
side is controlled by a tiny, overwhelmingly
liberal, anti-Trump group.
The future of social media and politics,
which are becoming increasingly
interconnected, is heading toward further
division and isolation. The Internet is, by
definition, incredibly vast and saturated
with opinions and information. It has the
power to trap us in small, insulated spaces,
shielded from dissent and difference.
In this digital landscape, awareness
of the sources and platforms from
which we consume information is essential
to the development of our worldviews
and how we interact with others.