# Are social media's recent bannings a freedom of expression issue? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2021, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330 "2021-01-12T14:56:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/302 "2021-01-17T17:30:42Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Information may be “true” or “untrue” but our individual beliefs and the matching of those beliefs with some objective reality, each, may not always overlap. There are, I am quite sure, beliefs you hold with absolute confidence as “true” that I hold with equal confidence as “false” . The converse as well. And likely many more that you have absolute confidence about that I merely think of “likely true” but with some doubts reserved, pathologic skeptic that I am. > > History is full of times that those in charge of access to information felt 100% confidence that their belief of what was “true” was 100% accurate, and that any speech to the contrary was dangerous disinformation. Usually their word for such disinformation was “heresy”, sometimes “treason”, and they justified suppression of it as “factually wrong, and demonstrably dangerous”. Putin takes the same position when he suppresses dissidents by any means needed … most ideas suppressed through the years were suppressed because they were deemed both false and dangerous by those with power at the time. Of course it likely is true that some of what was suppressed _was_ both those things! But obviously not all. > > Slowing down disinformation and preventing the stoking up of the credulous is something I see as a necessary public good. AND I see history as full of examples such power abused and dissent suppressed, including within our country. I would personally hope for caution that accomplishing the former does not enable the latter in the future. And I’d be _especially_ concerned about those who claim they want to control expression on the basis of “moral principles, ones that society in general at least claims to hold”. Much of the harm in history was done by those with that as justification. Nothing should trigger off alarm bells more than that claim. Seconded. I think most posters here would agree that even 20 or 30 years ago, society in general was wrong about some significant issues. Twenty or 30 years ago some people reading had very different ideas of what was true or false; some followed different moral principles. If individuals and society in general had not been exposed to contrary information, they would never have changed their minds. And there is nothing special about the present. We don’t have all the answers, and our own moral principles will surely be regarded as imperfect in the future. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/303 "2021-01-17T17:58:59Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > By no evidence, I mean all that is required is for someone to complain about something you’ve written. But they would actually have to _show_ what it is that you have written, right? Sounds like evidence to me. > [@DemonTree](#): > > There is no objective standard, no trial to decide if you are guilty of anything. That’s because you are _not_ found guilty of anything. > [@DemonTree](#): > > As for the consequences, it could affect your chances of getting certain jobs: Apparently jobs that require a pretty high level security clearance. The kind of jobs where they will also interview your family, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, and anyone else that you have come into contact with in the last decade or so. In those cases, are you also upset that one of your contacts may say something negative about you, and you would have no trial to decide if you are guilty of anything? The objective standard would be implemented at the time when application for such a clearance is reviewed. If they see that someone complained about something that you said on social media, then they will take that into consideration, along with all of the other information that they acquire about your behavior. If it is a frivolous complaint, then it will be ignored. If there is legitimacy to the complaint, then that is a fair consequence for your actions. At that level scrutiny, they will also pick up on any complaint your neighbors may have had about you not mowing your lawn, playing your music too loudly, or letting your dogs bark. Your worry is about such an edge case, one of which your concern would be such a small part of the decision, that it’s pretty absurd to even advance it. It also has _nothing_ to do with social media TOS and their implementation thereof, and is entirely to do with a desire to never see _any_ consequence for the actions that you take. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Perhaps you are right. What I’m saying is that Trump breaking the Twitter TOS gave then a reason to ban him, but it wasn’t the immediate cause. It _was_ the cause. Why else do you think that they banned him? He _was_ given more leeway than a regular joe twitterer, but they specifically explained that because he was an important public figure. You did notice that he was the president of the United States, right? > [@DemonTree](#): > > It’s like any situation where rules are selectively enforced, eg a corrupt regime where the dictators friends are only prosecuted for their crimes when they fall from favour. No, it’s not anything like that. That’s a horrible analogy, that doesn’t work on any level, for any reason, whatsoever. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Were they prosecuted because they committed crimes, or because of the dictator’s disfavour? I guess you could say both. I think that twitter was _very_ clear on why they gave the president of The United States more leeway than they would a regular twitter user. It was not because he fell out of favor that they finally pulled the plug, it’s that he used up that leeway and went too far. > [@DemonTree](#): > > As I see it there are two different factors being mixed up here: government vs private actors, and punishing someone for speech vs deplatforming/stopping other people hearing that speech That only because _you_ said that there was no difference. > [@DemonTree](#): > > I was trying to separate out if @k9bfriender objects to the government suppressing speech Yes. > [@DemonTree](#): > > he specifically objects to punishing people for speech but not to deplatforming By a private company that has no obligation to _give_ you a platform? > [@DemonTree](#): > > Hence me asking if he objects to the government suppressing speech but not punishing you for it. Either. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Does that make more sense? Not really. There were quite a number of loaded questions with some pretty inane assumptions built in that I don’t know how to best unpack. Let me ask you, if someone sends me a chain letter, and I don’t pass it on to 6 of my friends, am I deplatforming them? If you answer that, then I’ll have a better idea as to where you are coming from. > [@DemonTree](#): > > But yes, I can’t understand why if the consequences are the same, you think it matters so much who is taking the action. Because the consequences are _not_ the same. The government can (without projections given by 1A or similar free speech stipulations of other countries) prevent you from speaking. They can tell you not to say certain things, and they can levy punishment on you for doing so. They can take proactive measures to stop you from speaking in the first place. All twitter can do is tell you that you can no longer use _their_ service. You can use another service that has a TOS that you find more amenable, or you can make your _own_ service that has whatever TOS you want. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Perhaps in the past only the government had that much power, but that is not necessarily the case today. No, that is still the case today. Twitter can’t put you in jail for speaking out against the government, the government, absent free speech protections, can. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/304 "2021-01-17T18:25:19Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > I think most posters here would agree that even 20 or 30 years ago, society in general was wrong about some significant issues. Twenty or 30 years ago some people reading had very different ideas of what was true or false; some followed different moral principles. [I’m](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux/913349/1852) going to guess that many of us had moral [principles](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-wokeness/922065/27) back then that would be [considered](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-wokeness/922065) far more “ahead of our time” than [you](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disingenuous-racist-bigoted-posters-damuriajashi-demontree/928300/4). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/305 "2021-01-17T18:51:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But they would actually have to _show_ what it is that you have written, right? I’m not sure an employer’s ability to fire you for speech expressed outside of the workplace is the subject of this thread much, but no, they don’t. They don’t have to show you anything. And this can and does happen in jobs without high level clearance required, people choosing their therapists or hosts of other things. I can point you to threads about it if you’d like … > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Why else do you think that they banned him? Profit loss expectations given public opinion wind blowing and knowledge that he will soon no longer be president. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > You did notice that he was the president of the United States, right? You do notice that he still is for a few more days and had been much more explicitly horrific previously? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/306 "2021-01-17T18:57:26Z")
And that responds to the point in what way? Great for you if you were ahead of your time but the point stands - by definition most of society did not hold moral positions that were ahead of their time and held those views to be out of step with moral principles that most of society claimed to hold. A majority holding a moral view is a poor justification for handling other takes as dangerous disinformation. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/307 "2021-01-17T19:21:15Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And that responds to the point in what way? I’m saying odds are that I am far more likely to be looked on as correct than DemonTree 20 years from now, based on prior experience. ---
**Author:** ![peccavi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peccavi/32/388_2.png) [@peccavi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peccavi)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/308 "2021-01-17T19:53:02Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > > [@DemonTree](#): > > > > As for the consequences, it could affect your chances of getting certain jobs: > > Apparently jobs that require a pretty high level security clearance. The kind of jobs where they will also interview your family, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, and anyone else that you have come into contact with in the last decade or so. True story: Late last year (couple of weeks after the election), I had an in-person interview for a security re-investigation and the following standard question came up: > Have you EVER been a member of an organization that advocates or practices commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others from exercising their rights under the U.S. Constitution or any state of the United States with the specific intent to further such action? I deadpanned to the investigator “The short answer is no. The long answer is no, I’ve always been a registered Democrat.” Luckily, my investigator thought this was hilarious. Also, at the time, I didn’t realize how true my statement was. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/309 "2021-01-17T19:56:29Z")
Maybe. Maybe not. And to the point, it has nothing to do with the point. Again nice to self congratulate yourself. Good you! But not relevant to the conversation. Relevant to the conversation is that use of the standard of justification of speech limits by way of “based on moral principles, ones that society in general at least claims to hold” YOUR ahead of the times positions were NOT the moral principles society in general at least claimed to hold. Were likely at the time held by those with control over to be viewed as a wrong belief, a dangerous one even. And people like me who may not have been so ahead of our times, would not have had the chance to be convinced as we have been. Defining dangerous disinformation as that which goes against the current widely held moral principles is pretty dang dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/310 "2021-01-17T20:57:29Z")
And just to be clear, I can see nothing in what you linked to that gives grounds for your prediction. But accepting some basis for it as a hypothetical - it would precisely make the point, not dispute it. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/311 "2021-01-17T22:16:34Z")
**Modnote** : please attack or debate the posts and not the poster. This was attacking the poster. Please do not repeat. _This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record._ ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/312 "2021-01-17T23:44:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Yes I feel strongly enough that I would propose a legal remedy that gives broad 1A consistent guardrails to what the platforms ToS can look like, impose upon the platforms an obligation to implement their ToS as consistently as possible, and to have a process in place to do that which includes some appeal process. Would you find it acceptable if Twitter amended their ToS to read: “By your use of this service, you agree that Twitter has unrestricted rights to suspend or ban your account without giving notice or reason.” This would expediently solve the objection “Twitter is not adhering to their terms of service”. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/313 "2021-01-18T00:06:12Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Apparently jobs that require a pretty high level security clearance. The kind of jobs where they will also interview your family, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, and anyone else that you have come into contact with in the last decade or so. No, it’s for jobs like teacher or childminder or doctor. They are not going to be interviewing your friends and hearing about quarrels with your neighbours, that’s beyond absurd. They might search your social media, but if there are obvious red flags then that’s your own fault. I don’t think the police have any business recording non-crimes and potentially reporting them to future employers with no recourse for the individual concerned. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > It also has _nothing_ to do with social media TOS and their implementation thereof, and is entirely to do with a desire to never see _any_ consequence for the actions that you take. I never said it did. It was a reply to a different question, and no it isn’t a desire to never see any consequences. It’s a desire to have the same protection _you_ enjoy from the 1st amendment. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > That’s a horrible analogy, that doesn’t work on any level, for any reason, whatsoever. Perhaps you could make an argument as to why it doesn’t work rather than merely stating it? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Let me ask you, if someone sends me a chain letter, and I don’t pass it on to 6 of my friends, am I deplatforming them? If you answer that, then I’ll have a better idea as to where you are coming from. Of course not, but you already knew that. The SDMB banning you does not deplatform you either. It is only when one platform dominates the conversation, or a few do but all push the same message, that it becomes an issue. The same thing can happen if one company owns too many media outlets - the owner gets to choose what information other people are exposed to and the slant it is given. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > > [@DemonTree](#): > > > > Hence me asking if he objects to the government suppressing speech but not punishing you for it. > > Either. So hypothetically, _if_ the government deplatformed you, but didn’t punish you for your speech, would that be a problem or totally fine? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/314 "2021-01-18T02:27:45Z")
No. Next question? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/315 "2021-01-18T12:26:27Z")
Relevant article: > **[Should we celebrate Trump’s Twitter ban? Five free speech experts weigh in](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/17/trump-twitter-ban-five-free-speech-experts-weigh-in)** > > In recent years, the conversation around free speech – and arguments to protect it – have been dominated by the right. Should liberals try and reclaim the value for themselves? There’s some similar arguments from the experts to what we’ve seen in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/316 "2021-01-18T17:59:51Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Would you find it acceptable if Twitter amended their ToS to read: “By your use of this service, you agree that Twitter has unrestricted rights to suspend or ban your account without giving notice or reason.” Since at least June of 2017, the [Twitter ToS](https://twitter.com/en/tos) has contained this paragraph: > “Our Services evolve constantly. As such, the Services may change from time to time, **at our discretion**. **We may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services** or any features within the Services **to you** or to users generally. We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time. **We may also** remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, **suspend or terminate users** , and reclaim usernames **without liability to you**.” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/317 "2021-01-18T22:19:45Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > No. > > Next question? So it seems like this is less about how Twitter applies its ToS, and more about giving the government the power to dictate Twitter’s ToS? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/318 "2021-01-18T22:52:42Z")
Some quotes: > [@Ben Wizner - Director ACLU speech and privacy project](#): > > [Facebook](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook) has 2.5bn users. If it had 2m users, I wouldn’t care about its moderation policies. If it was just for people who were very interested in yarn, there would be no basis whatsoever for me to tell them what their standards should be. But the fact that it has become the dominant platform for certain kinds of debate means we all have a stake. We need to use the law to prevent companies from consolidating that amount of power over our public discourse. That does not mean regulation of content. It would mean enforcing our anti-trust laws in the US. We should never have allowed a handful of companies to achieve the market dominance they have over such important public spaces. > [@Suzanne Nossell - CEO of Pen America](#): > > **How do you feel about social media platforms having the right to decide who says what?** While I believe the government should not be legislating what can and can’t be published on a platform like Twitter, we need far more robust protections for the public in terms of transparency: how these decisions are made, what the rules are, what the basis of adjudication is in an individual instance. > > If you have a valid claim that you shouldn’t have been kicked off, there really is no recourse; often an appeal can go into a black hole, people can’t get answers and don’t even know what rule they are accused of violating. There needs to be a robust process accessible to people in real time. > > **How involved should the government be, exactly?** One analogy is financial regulation, where there are elaborate disclosure agreements. These are private companies – investment banks, commercial banks – but there are meticulous obligations in terms of public accountability. Social media companies should be required to make public how their algorithms are configured, what kinds of content is disappearing and when, what gets amplified and propagated across the network and why. > > **Do people know what free speech is anymore?** I worry that many Americans are confused and under-informed. You see people arguing that Tump’s ban from Twitter, or not publishing Josh Hawley, constitutes first amendment violations – but that’s just completely baseless. People tend to be unfamiliar with what the exceptions and limitations are to the first amendment, and in many ways have lost sight of why we protect free speech. > > **Which is … ?** The contention between opposing ideas is a catalyst to get to the truth. If people can call into question your claims and bring to light contrary evidence, that pushes forward debate. Free speech promotes tolerance and civil engagement. It is part of individual autonomy and how each of us expresses our identities. It’s an underpinning for artistic achievements, for scientific progress, for economic prosperity. > [@Branko Marcetic - Jacobin magazine](#): > > **What’s the left** **wing case for free speech?** [Censorship](https://www.theguardian.com/world/censorship) – and any type of oppression, really – always begins by targeting particularly unsympathetic people, those who it is uncontroversial to censor. But once you set that precedent, inevitably, the bounds of what is considered acceptable or wrong always ends up expanding. > > Those censoring are liable to political pressure. They may want to temper criticism or ingratiate themselves with a new regime. When Facebook started factchecking due to concerns about fake news, some of the fact checkers that got on board were from rightwing news outlets like the Weekly Standard, a long-standing neo-conservative magazine, and the Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson’s old media entity. > > There were several instances where fact checkers from those outlets “factchecked” stories where there was strong disagreement [about their conclusions]. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/319 "2021-01-18T23:08:21Z")
No. The concern is the arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent way in which speech is regulated by the dominant platforms. Seriously read what you have quoted. Saying we will be completely arbitrary by whatever varying standards we like and then being that is not a remedy. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/320 "2021-01-18T23:16:14Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Seriously read what you have quoted. > > Saying we will be completely arbitrary by whatever varying standards we like and then being that is not a remedy. I’m trying to understand what sort of law people are wiling to pass to achieve the stated aims. It sounds like you want to put restrictions on the kind of terms of service Twitter can offer, and you want to impose a regulatory burden to make Twitter hew to the government-drafted terms. That’s a pretty dramatic overreach of power… and based on what I’ve seen over the last 4 years, I don’t think I want to see the government having any say over what a private platform regards as unacceptable speech. The first thing the next Trump would do is take firm control over this new Ministry of Truth and bend it to their own ends. No thanks. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/321 "2021-01-18T23:31:53Z")
That’s a creative interpretation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330.md?page=17)