In light of the ensuing pandemic, social media companies – most notably Twitter – have taken it upon themselves to purge so-called “misinformation” from their platforms. Notably, Twitter has been removing tweets and videos that spread what they have been referring to as “misinformation” about coronavirus. At first glance, one might even sympathize with the media giant. After all, we would all prefer that there be more accurate information out in the world. But such a position misses the key issue at hand with Twitter’s censorship, namely, that it did not start with the pandemic, and will not end after this all is over.
One of the most visible uses of this new protocol was the suspension of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro whom Twitter suspended for a video in which he was encouraging the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malaria drug that is being explored as a promising treatment for those with COVID-19 and has even been endorsed as a treatment by the American Thoracic Society. Albeit unproven, the Trump administration has even recommended for the drug to be fast-tracked through the approval process by the FDA. So why was President Bolsonaro’s statement deemed misinformation? Because he said it’s “working everywhere” which was apparently such an over-exaggeration that the public not be allowed to hear what he says. The suspension of Bolsonaro raises several questions about Twitter (and social media more generally), some of which have been burning for years.
Should Twitter censor any president or political figure?
Stance on social media censorship aside, it is generally accepted that the media should not censor or alter the recorded speech of a national leader. If the President were giving an address over the radio, it would not be appropriate to edit out, say, a curse word. So why is Twitter not respecting the office of the President of Brazil? Even though he is not the president of the United States (where Twitter is headquartered) I believe that media owe the office of President of Brazil respect, even if they do not like the man who holds it.
Is Twitter a platform or a publisher?
This question is very old, but it must be answered as the political debate surrounding social media censorship is based on whether these companies are platforms or publishers. US section 230 of the Communication Decency Act details certain protections given to companies that are platforms, as opposed to being publishers. More specifically, if Twitter is a publisher, then they are free to censor as they see fit, but they are responsible for what is said on their site, whereas a platform holds no responsibility for anything said, but they cannot censor. Twitter has a long and storied history of selectively censoring political beliefs on their platform, clearly demonstrating a bias against conservatives. If Twitter is going to censor “misinformation” then surely they should be given no protections allotted to a platform and must be held responsible for what users say.
Why is Twitter only suspending certain politicians?
If Twitter is censoring “misinformation” by political leaders, why haven’t they suspended the account of Bill DeBlasio, who just a month ago was telling New Yorkers to go to movies and parades? New York City is the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, with the outbreak being allowed to spread due to the actions of New York politicians who encouraged people to congregate in public spaces. Jair Bolsonaro’s overenthusiasm for a medicine that medical professionals themselves are touting as a viable treatment results in a suspension, but Bill DeBlasio’s active encouragement of the very behavior that spread this disease warrants no action from the tech giant. Twitter’s left-wing bias is nothing new but has simply become more clearly present in the public eye.
While I would like to give the billionaire elites of Silicon Valley the benefit of the doubt, doing so would be irresponsible. The suspension, deletion, and banning of “misinformation” fit a pattern of behavior by social media behemoths which has been destructive to discourse and the political process. Previously, they have kicked off genuine extremists with distasteful politics: those who most wouldn’t advocate for (lest they be associated with beliefs they do not support) such as the American Nazi Party, who were banned in December of 2017. This was then used to justify more and more bannings of far-right personalities (such as James Allsup, December 2017), and then more run of the mill conservatives (such as Carl Benjamin’s MEP campaign account, April 2019). People were okay with the literal Nazis being banned, which emboldened social media companies to ban anyone that an online mob called a “literal Nazi”. I hope to be proven wrong, and I very well may be, but it would not be surprising in the slightest if Twitter uses this precedent to continue to censor “misinformation” after the pandemic has resolved. Keep in mind that social media companies have been censoring wrongthink when it was deemed “hateful”, and now that will include “misinformation”. If your beliefs, statements, or opinions can be classified as “misinformation”, then according to the social media giants, you just may need to be silenced for the public good. After all, if suppression of speech was allowed during a pandemic, surely it can carry on long after the disease is a distant memory.
