In the end it happened, after Trump's ban on social networks, the problem of regulation in them arises

During the last week various events have been generated in response to the events that took place in the Capitol, events that are attributed to the publications on social networks of the current president of the United States "Donald Trump".

After these events some social networks and other platforms technological they decided to act after the account of Donald Trump's Twitter was permanently blocked.

And good, this is where the interesting part begins of the case, since since the different technological platforms made their decision to act on the events opinions were divided basically in two camps «those in favor» and those «against».

Although there could also be neutrals, those who simply do not care, in this situation there is no intermediate point, since the events that are about to occur will undoubtedly mark something important about where we are going both as a society and to know the scope and what will have to be done about social media regulations.

This is an issue that has been debated for a long time and as a precedent we can go back some 10 years and take as a reference what happened in Egypt.

It must be taken into account that on the side of those who are found of the response of technology platforms about Trump, they mainly have in mind: "Is the Outgoing US President's Freedom of Speech Being Denied?"

Given this, many of the platforms are justified by the need to fight against incitement to violence that their publications transmit.

For its part, France's current Finance Minister Bruno le Maire denounces a digital oligarchy that threatens democracies:

“What surprises me about the closure of Donald Trump's Twitter account is that it is Twitter that is closing. The regulation of digital people cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself. The digital oligarchy is one of the threats looming over states and democracies. Regulation is necessary, but it must be done by the sovereign people, by the States and by justice ”

While in germany with the departure of Angela Merkel's spokesperson:

“The Chancellor considers the permanent suspension of the account of an incumbent president problematic. Rights such as freedom of expression can be hindered, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislator and not by a company decision. "

This generated situation has created an important point of contention between the United States and Europe on how to regulate social media platforms.

And in The EU wants to give regulators more power to force platforms from the Internet such as Facebook or Twitter to remove illegal content and in the United States, on the other hand, content monitoring published on their platforms has so far been the responsibility of online service providers, although political measures aimed at restricting their regulatory freedoms are increasingly frequent.

These measures have already been working for several months in different bills that would limit the legal protections that social media companies have from being sued for third-party content posted on their sites.

While others are pushing for a new federal data protection bill, which could mirror the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union.

Debates on the power of social media and the interpretation that will be given to freedom of expression they are undoubtedly quite delicate subjects.

With this, they are grouped into several factions among which are: those who think that social networks are not public services, while others consider them essential in terms of communication and there are those who think that these platforms can be considered as public services if they are considered in terms of its expansion.

Social media has long avoided these debates by positioning itself as content neutral.

But since the assault on the Capitol, it has become increasingly clear that they have power and responsibility over the public debate.

The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

2 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *



  1. Responsible for the data: AB Internet Networks 2008 SL
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Lucretius Orontius said

    Well, it seems that we have returned to what was seen in Europe during the existence of the Inquisition and fascism; those who do not think like us must be exterminated from the face of the earth. The social networks themselves are digging the pit in which they themselves will be buried when the tide turns and they and their bosses are the targets of the angry masses. You don't have to be a lighthouse to figure out what they are doing. Freedom is a right that only belongs to you if your opinion is an exact copy of what we all like to hear.

  2.   Miguel Rodriguez said

    I believe that people do not understand that being able to translate ideas and information without having to pay on an online site in some way makes it public or "free", that they have the "Right" to decide that private property should be intervened of companies that offer services to safeguard a "freedom of expression" according to them that, from the moment in which the conditions of the service are accepted, a bilateral pact or contract of the parties (client and company) is already determined, which must be fulfilled and that is also usually intervened at times by state legislation ... When it is almost impossible to write something on the internet, I hope they do not come like crybabies to talk about freedom of expression because what they are demanding is public control of social networks, something that does of the delights of every politician and potential dictator.