Big Tech, Social Media And The Trump Ban: The Legal, Ethical And Political Concerns
Whatsapp, on January 6, announced that it had updated its terms of service and privacy policy. It stated that it will begin to share data with parent company, Facebook. This announcement met heavy backlash and social media outrage.
Explaining on its FAQ page, Whatsapp clarified that only information obtained from interaction with a business account, which is optional, will be shared. Communication with “friends, family and co-workers” remains private.
This announcement led to a great Whatsapp migration, with SpaceX founder, and most recent world’s richest man, Elon Musk tweeting, “Use Signal ‘’, which led to a huge migration to Signal.
This umbrage comes as no surprise as Facebook’s ethics on data privacy has been questioned before.
On the same day, the United States Capitol, seat of the US legislative branch, was stormed by rioters, who destroyed property and made away with the Speaker’s lectern.
Following this event, Twitter permanently banned the outgoing US president, Donald Trump, from its platform, following a series of tweets he had sent out prior to the Capitol raid.
Before banning him, Twitter had initially been labelling Trump’s tweet as disputed, following his reaction to the Presidential election results.
The social media platform stated that the suspension was necessary “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”
Following the ban, several other big tech companies including Spotify, Google, Amazon, Snapchat and others, also gave Trump the boot.
The President of the United States, arguably the most powerful man in the free world, had been excommunicated, digitally.
With rapid advancements in technology and social media growth, the dynamics of power have undoubtedly come to question.
There has been heavy criticism of the ban by world and industry leaders, with some describing it as “problematic”, “dangerous” and “wrong”.
Does the future of political sovereignty hang in the balance? Will political power become privatized?
An industry famous for technological disruptions is beginning to turn its disruptive tendencies towards politics.
Power is now accumulated in numbers, the power of the mob on social media, and the power of those that control these platforms. Twitter records 330 million users and as at 2020, Facebook was boasting a whopping 2.7 billion active users.
Where institutions of government have been slow to address, correct, or curtail certain behaviours and actions, social justice, elevated by social media, has been swift to action.
“Cancel culture”, probably the most disturbing outcome of social justice, has proved to be unforgiving, harsh and with a tendency to cause greater harm than good. During the BLM protests, after George Floyd’s devastating death, brands and companies that did not publicly declare themselves allies of the movement risked being cancelled.
Whether the support was genuine and would be reflected in the future endeavours of the company, or was merely social media posturing was beside the point. As long as these brands were seen to be showing their support.
In Nigeria, the “EndSARS” protests erupted across the country in October 2020, against the unlawful and corrupt activities of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigerian Police.
Nigerians, particularly those in the diaspora, specifically those with platforms and influence, who did not display social media support for the protests, were called out, shamed and cancelled.
Ronke Raji, a popular Nigerian Youtuber and influencer, based in the United States, had dragged her feet in publicly supporting the EndSARS protests. When she did eventually speak up, the EndSARS issue was a subtext of her Instagram post.
This worked to further incense Nigerians on social media at a time when emotions were at an all-time high. She was vehemently attacked on social media, calls were made to deplatform her, any show of support or solidarity for her was shut down.
She had to lock up her Twitter account to stem the flow of the attack. She was scapegoated, at a time when the youth of the country were protesting to determine the future of their country.
At a time of rapidly increasing grounds of division, deliberate steps should be taken towards healing and consolidation, rather than further incense the public.
Social justice is subjective and has no set parameters defining and distinguishing between justice, revenge and punishment. With “deplatfroming” and cancel culture at an all time high, and social trip wires and triggers scattered all over, social platforms will have to see that justice is impartially meted out.
Is the industry ready to carry the weight of dispelling justice, blindfolded, bearing the scale of fairness and the sword of truth?
The strength of political power is fast receding in the face of social clout, influence and social justice. Not only do tech companies easily control platforms that house billions of people across the world, they also have access. Access to data and information that is more valuable than just the numbers their users represent.
With the unchecked powers that tech companies have over their platforms, there are deep issues of data privacy at stake. Data culled from various digital media applications, provide a fairly accurate representation of the reality of users.
It is possible to obtain information about their pain points, interests, desires etc. The sum total of a person’s digital activities, is their digital doppelganger. It is the most aware self of a person and it is the most vulnerable to social engineering.
With murky privacy policies, the extent to which this information is used and manipulated is unclear. This, therefore, places a burden on the tech industry. A burden of transparency, which they haven’t shown capable of displaying over the years.
Transparency has to be demanded, on the part of the tech companies and the third parties that eventually obtain the data being tracked.
While this might seem like boring information that the customer does not need, it is still very important that it be spelt out and made accessible. This may prove off putting for some customers, it however protects the user’s agency over their lives and decisions they make.
A few days after expelling Trump from his platform, Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO released several tweets contemplating the precedence that has been set by Trump’s ban.
He admits that a move such as the one made has real life implications, “Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation,” He says. “They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
He however justifies the move “We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.” he says.
Advancement in social media and its effects on globalization and privacy is a recent development. It really is just beginning.