Twitter without gatekeepers will save public conversation. Not Khameini, Trump bans
Opinion

Twitter without gatekeepers will save public conversation. Not Khameini, Trump bans

Banning, blocking, or barring users from social media without any legal process is a problem, and may lead to its demise as universal platforms for conversation.

Donald Trump and Ayatollah Khameini

US President Donald Trump and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini | Bloomberg and http://english.khamenei.ir/

In the aftermath of the US elections and ensuing ruckus and violence at the Capitol on 6 January, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram blocked or barred accounts of then sitting US president Donald Trump. Now, Twitter has banned Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s account. The Twitter handle @khamenei_site was linked to a website of Khamenei. This site had posted a picture of Trump with the caption, “Revenge is Certain”. Twitter later clarified that the handle it took down was fake, without giving any further explanation on how it concluded the account was fake.

This has raised concern about the users’ agency on social media vis-a-vis the owners of the platforms. Banning, blocking, or barring users from posting content on social media, and that too without any legal process is problematic. Restricting certain people and ideas can cause a cascading effect that may herald the demise of social media as universal platforms for conversation.

Universality is the masonic stone of the entire edifice, which we know as social media. Once this masonic stone is gone, the whole structure could crumble in no time. It does not mean that social media will die — it may or may not die. But even if it survives, it will not be ‘social’ in the truest sense. Rather, it will become another ghettoised space. This will be the antithesis of the premise and promise of social media. As in the case of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s Twitter handle, the threat by the Iranian leader was widely covered by legacy media. Not allowing this news on social media did not really serve any purpose. Even in the case of Trump, one may disagree with him. But if he, as the president of the US, says something, however absurd that may be, should the media not report his utterances? If traditional media outlets report a speech or statement, what purpose does it serve to block that message on social media?


Also read: Facebook’s oversight board to decide whether Trump’s account remains suspended


Arbitrary rules

I have been blocked by Twitter and Facebook at least thrice, and each time there was an outrage on social media against the actions of these platforms. Each time, my posting rights were eventually restored. This might have something to do with the algorithms of these platforms, and this might have happened due to mass reporting by some or the other group who might have been unhappy with my posts. I was never notified that my post violated any particular rules or policies of the platforms. Each time, the post which was found to be violating platform policies was restored.

Anyone can be blocked or barred from posting on these platforms, the prerequisite being that one’s post must get adverse reactions from a group of people. So, again theoretically, I can gang up with a group of people and throw anyone out of the social media conversation by mass reporting their posts.

In my case, a large number of users opposed the actions taken by Twitter and Facebook, so they had to take note of their mistake. But this may not happen the next time or in the case of some other users. This is more problematic in a country like India, where political and social fault lines are very sharp and people subscribing to dominant ideology can bulldoze over other ideas quite easily.


Also read: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says banning Trump was ‘right decision’


Why social media must be democratic

I consider social media to be part of the public sphere, though not strictly in Habermasian terms. Jürgen Habermas speaks about social media in a more normative and hypothetical manner. For him, the public sphere is a non-government arena of debate and discourse, meant to provide space for conversations related to matters concerning democratic processes. Even social media was meant to be, or claimed to be, a democratic space where access is not denied to anyone and anybody; and at least theoretically, everybody can take part in the conversation. Unrestricted, unhindered, and equal access was supposed to be the masonic stone of the social networks. This premise is very important as the whole edifice of social media depends on this. People of different ideas, classes, gender, races, religions, languages, and ideologies should ideally intermingle and converse on such platforms. If someone or some group having some ideology, however outrageous or absurd they may sound, is restricted from taking part in the conversation, that will turn social media platforms into another ghettoised space. In that scenario, liberals will only talk to liberals and conservatives will only talk to conservatives, and everybody will have his or her own filtered bubbles and echo chambers.

I, as a social media platform, may not like some or the other idea, or may feel offended by the content or language of certain content, but I should not bar or restrict such ideas or content unless it violates the law of the land. Neither a person nor group of people, nor any algorithm, should be allowed to interfere, in a restrictive manner, in the free flow of conversations.

I am against barring or blocking anyone on social media platforms, unless he or she does something illegal or libellous. As in the case of India, let the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Constitution, laws on defamation, rules of parliamentary privileges, rules against contempt of court, and the Information Technology Act take care of such matters. No way should it be left to a person or group of persons sitting in the offices of social media companies to decide arbitrarily on such matters.

Social media should allow all ideas, irrespective of liking or disliking of anybody, or any ideas which have become normative today and were considered absurd or blasphemous a few centuries ago. We may take the case of the heliocentric or sun-centered solar system model of Copernicus and Galileo. The idea was once blasphemous in the domain of church, but later on things changed for good. Similarly, not long ago, slavery or public lynching of African Americans/Africans, was a normative idea in the West. Now it’s illegal in almost the entire globe. So the motto of social media platforms should be to let thousands of flowers bloom.

One can ask that if somebody on social media justifies genocide, or calls for the killing of certain group of people, then what role should social media platform play in such a situation. This is a clear case of inciting violence against a certain group of people and demands penal action, hence social media companies should take appropriate action. But to take such actions on a regular basis, platforms may need to employ more people. As their revenue and profits are soaring, they are earning a lot of money selling data generated by the users. Therefore, it’s their responsibility to take care of the basic hygiene of the platform.

It must not be forgotten that the users are stakeholders. Social media companies cannot use the excuse that they are not taking any money from the users, and claim they do not have any responsibility towards them.

The author is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has written books on media and sociology. Views are personal.