Former president Trump banned on social media platforms

Nicholis Emmons, Staff Writer

On January 6, 2021, people watched as the U.S. Capitol building was stormed and raided by supporters of former President Trump. This revolt rode on claims of a stolen and corrupted election, propelled by Trump, news outlets, and politicians in support of him.
In D.C., the outcome of a speech Trump gave led up to the eventual storming of the Capitol. Fifteen minutes into the speech, Trump told the rally attendees to walk to the Capitol.
“You have to show strength,” he said.
On January 8, two days after the initial riot in D.C., Twitter suspended Trump’s account.
The reason for the ban was because the tweets violated Twitter’s glorification of violence policy. In a statement made by Twitter on January 8, they explained their reasoning and interpretation of the tweets in context of the current events.
Trump first tweeted, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Trump then went on to tweet, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
Soon after Twitter’s ban on the president’s account, many other prominent social media companies followed suit.
Facebook, Twitch, Youtube, Reddit and Snapchat also at least temporarily banned Trump from their services. Meanwhile, Spotify, Pinterest, Shopify and Swipe removed many communities associated with the president.
One of Trump’s most supportive social media sites, Parler, was taken down completely by Amazon’s hosting service.
Facebook, specifically, planned to keep his account banned until his presidential term is over. But later Facebook decided to suspend Trump’s account indefinitely.
In the past, Trump and other world leaders’ social media accounts have stayed active even if the content they post was against guidelines because their posts are considered newsworthy. However, because these social media companies are private and can choose who they let on their site, they have the authority to suspend whoever they like.
This could bring into question whether social media sites have too much power over what can and can’t be said on the internet. Having a select handful of people essentially deciding what is and isn’t appropriate to be shared online is controversial.
Media corporations have the right to choose what content is posted to their site because the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, according to a congressional research service report.
Simultaneously, people’s ability to live in their own insulated online bubble, which never challenges their beliefs and only serves to reinforce and radicalize their world view, is arguably just as dangerous and, as demonstrated at the start of January, can have real and meaningful consequences.