LONDON (Bywire News) - Twitter’s decision to ban Donald Trump is not so much shutting the door after the horse has bolted, but waiting until it has gone, run amok and kicked a few people in the head. For years, the platform has been his megaphone broadcasting every crazy thought which enters his head. If the riot was Trump’s fault Twitter was their eager enabler. Now, belatedly, from his island getaway, Jack Dorsey suddenly developed a conscience.
So too did a lot of the other big tech stalwarts. Facebook banned Trump while Apple, Google and Amazon Web Services suspended the right-wing social media app Parler. With every vendor turning its back, the site was forced offline. Its CEO suggested the platform could go out of business.
For so long big tech had been Trump’s best friend. All of a sudden it doesn’t want to know.
End of an affair
It’s easy to celebrate a decision which many will say should have been taken place long ago. Even so, the decision raises important questions.
First Twitter is just one of many people seeking to backtrack on its previous support for Trump. Just as Boris Johnson was hoping nobody would remember the time he called for Trump to get the Nobel Peace Prize, so Twitter will be hoping people forget the number of times it declined calls to ban him.
Had they been concerned about the possibility of inciting violence, they might have acted when he wrote ‘when the looting starts the shooting starts,’ or when he compared Mexicans to rapists. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, meanwhile, personally defended the decision not to suspend Steve Bannon after he called for the beheading of government officials. Zuckerberg has also resisted calls to remove antisemitic and posts and anti-vax conspiracy theories from his platform.
Anyone who feels the social media giants would be taking this action if Trump had won the election is almost as deluded as the increasingly isolated President.
With great power…
Secondly, The decision of Facebook and Twitter to suspend Trump highlights the immense power these platforms have. With one stroke they muzzled the most powerful man in the world (for the next ten days at least). They deprived him of his favourite form of communication, one which has formed the basis of the Trump project from the very beginning.
The problem is not the decision to suspend Trump’s account but how it was made and who made it. Whatever our political persuasion, the immense power wielded by major corporate institutions shouldn’t worry us.
We must ask ourselves what’s to stop them from being similarly cynical in the future. What would happen, for example, if a political figure emerged which they believed offered a threat to their business model? Having such important decisions made by corporate interests creates as much of a threat to democracy as Trump.
A new approach to social media
Instead, we have to take them out of the decision-making process. What happened last week was not just the doing of Trump it was down to the whole structure of social media. Big tech has shown itself unwilling to counter extremism online and if you think this moment marks a change of heart thing again.
Although far-right accounts have disappeared in recent days, this is still a drop in the ocean. Rudi Giuliani still has a platform despite urging Trump supporters to conduct a trial by combat. So does Ted Cruz who, just days before the riot, whipped up a group of Trump supporters, comparing them to fighters in the American Civil War. Trump’s removal is both a landmark moment and entirely meaningless.
Social media moderators face a thankless task. They stand against an avalanche of fake news, false accounts, and extremism. They are as hopelessly outnumbered as the Capitol’s security staff.
To find a solution we need to address the nature of social media itself. This year we have seen the emergence of a platform which offers a more positive vision of the future. Voice.com was created by Block.one to offer a solution to the problem of social media. Its human signup technology ensures that only verified humans can sign up.
It is designed to prevent the spread of bots and fake accounts. It ensures all content posted on the site can be traced back to its author.
The platform has a more democratic approach to moderation. While Twitter and Facebook place all the power in the hands of an unaccountable corporation, Voice gives it to the community. Users can flag up a post as problematic.
Voice’s moderators will then assess the post. If it is obviously illegal or promotes violence, they quickly remove the content. Otherwise, they put it to the vote. The system, which was recently trialled, will place a notice at the bottom of a post saying, it has been reported as offensive and inviting users to vote on whether they agree.
From a logistical point of view, this harnesses the power of Voice’s own community to moderate the site. This could supplement existing efforts by a platform and give it a fighting chance against the avalanche of fake accounts and fake news.
Equally, though, it would delegate power away from the corporate owners of big tech. It creates a democratic environment in which the rules are managed and policed by the people who use the platform. For those worried about the immense power social media platforms have, this would offer a more democratic alternative.
Bywire works in a similar way. Like Voice, we also operate on a blockchain. Content is verified. transparent and time-stamped. These features ensure accountability which is an essential tool in combating any false narratives.
The platform is in its early stages. Time will tell if it takes hold or not. However, it represents a model on which social media can build. Rather than making social media giants the gatekeepers of public discourse, we need to give power back to the people. It represents a more democratic, transparent and accountable vision of the future. Because of that, it also represents the nightmare scenario for Murdoch, Twitter and whoever is setting himself up to be the next Trump.
(Written by Tom Cropper, edited by Klaudia Fior)