Trump’s Twitter Ban: Could it be the nail in the coffin for the public sphere?

Written By Karma Abudagga

Feb 1 2021 | Connie Lawfull

There are now 3.7 billion of us worldwide that use social media. With over 95 million photos posted to Instagram, more than 400,000 hours of video uploaded to YouTube and over 500 million tweets being sent each day, social media has fast become one of the most popular uses of the internet. It has created something that not so long ago would have been unimaginable - a global network of individuals from different places and backgrounds able to share their knowledge, opinions, experiences and ideas in an instant. It is often considered to be the ultimate embodiment of the public sphere; a space in which citizens come together to discuss and deliberate public affairs, and through this discussion form public opinion and affect political action.

 For this reason, Twitter has long tried to avoid removing world leaders and their content from the platform. They have stated that they aim to provide ‘a place where people can participate in public conversation and get informed about the world around them’, and this includes allowing users the opportunity to engage with leaders directly. Even when a Tweet from a world leader violates their rules, they tend to place it behind a notice that provides context about the violation rather than removing it entirely, believing that access to this content is within the public interest.

 Despite this, on January 8th they made the decision to permanently suspend the account of Donald Trump on the grounds that the risk of him using the platform to further incite his already volatile following was too high. It was clearly not a decision they took lightly. Twitter chief Jack Dorsey described the ban as ‘destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet’, yet ultimately decided it was ‘right’. Many seem to agree with this verdict, with the estimated 73% decline in the circulation of misinformation about the US election on social media that has occurred since the ban being taken as evidence that Twitter made the right call. However, I am apprehensive about the potential of this ban to further fracture our already polarised public sphere.

Throughout both of his presidential campaigns and his time in office, Donald Trump has fostered a distrust of mainstream media within his following. In December, Trump took to Twitter to claim that, by flagging his Tweets for misinformation, the platform was ‘purposely stifling free speech’ and ‘trying hard to suppress even the truth’. During his political rally on January 6th, Trump told the crowd that he could ‘guarantee’ many of the television networks present were turning off their cameras while he spoke on certain topics, and professed ‘we don't have a free and fair press. Our media is not free, it's not fair. It suppresses thought, it suppresses speech, and it's become the enemy of the people’.

 

It follows, therefore, that for many people Trump’s Twitter ban served only to confirm what they already suspected to be true: mainstream media is far more partisan than it purports to be, and it is willfully suppressing and censoring right-wing discourse. The thread posted by Twitter Chief Jack Dorsey defending Trump’s ban has been flooded by replies that accuse the site of only moderating those on the right of the political spectrum. These accusations are neither accurate nor fair, as evidenced by the suspension of many leftist activists in the past, often without explanation. However, when individuals believe that their standpoint is being attacked by mainstream media, they are likely to look for alternative sources of information.

 

Picture 1.png


Recent months have seen a sharp rise in the popularity of Parler - a microblogging service with a similar format to Twitter that prizes free speech and claims to provide an unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks. While it had fewer than 1 million total users in early 2020, the site now boasts almost 15 million. Many service providers have refused to host it due to its moderators’ failure to curb violent content, hate speech, the planning of illegal activity and the glorification of the Capitol riots. Now it is back up and running, and only growing in popularity.

 The homepage of Donald Trump Jr’s website currently displays the warning ‘CENSORSHIP IS HAPPENING // SIGN UP TO STAY CONNECTED’, urging visitors to ‘opt-in to receive messages from Don Jr & affiliates’, and in doing so purports to be a more dependable source of information than mainstream media. Similarly, Alex Jones’ popular far-right conspiracy theory and alternative news site ‘InfoWars’ claims to be ‘the #1 Independent news service in the world’, ingratiating itself with those who are skeptical of mainstream media.

 While professional media outlets typically operate under a code of journalistic ethics that promises accuracy and public accountability, Don Jr, Alex Jones and many other alternative right-wing news sources are bound by no such code. InfoWars hosts articles that insist on the illegitimacy of Joe Biden’s presidential win, describe his inauguration as ‘a funeral for America’, and baselessly claim that Trump still plans to ‘institute a final move, arrest all the globalists and assume a second term’.

 Examples such as these demonstrate how attempts to curtail Trump’s inflammatory claims could actually push certain groups to seek refuge from what they perceive to be partisan attacks from mainstream media, turning to platforms that at best offer homogeneity of opinion and at worst circulate information that is inaccurate, divisive or inciteful.

 The creation of different information channels for groups with different political affiliations is detrimental to the public conversation. It shields us from being exposed to those with opinions that challenge our own or who have different life experiences, and it stifles the potential of the internet to be a space of learning and debate.

 As communications expert Dr Scott Stroud explains, by attempting to solve the problem of misinformation ‘we may be creating new problems for our democracy. If the aim of an adequately informed citizenry is to deliberate together, then solutions that weaponize the “fake news” label and drive individuals away from efforts of media literacy and fact checking would be a non-desirable consequence’.

“We may be creating new problems for our democracy. If the aim of an adequately informed citizenry is to deliberate together, then solutions that weaponize the “fake news” label and drive individuals away from efforts of media literacy and fact checking would be a non-desirable consequence.”
— Dr. Scott Stroud

 Trump’s 2016 election win can be attributed in part to his success in drawing in support from a section of the US population who had not exercised their right to vote in previous elections; through his populist approach, Trump mobilised a largely white, working-class and rural demographic of disenfranchised citizens who had long felt overlooked by the establishment and political elite, but saw something different in him, believing that he would make their voices heard.

The Democrats once represented the working class, but over the last three decades the party has neglected to tackle the issues that most affect them. They have increasingly prioritised corporate interests over decreasing economic inequality, pushing for free trade agreements that left millions of blue-collar workers out of a job, and failing to impose meaningful penalties on corporations for attacking trade unions or violating labour laws. What’s more, their campaigns have put greater focus on securing votes from the middle class populations of swing states than on promising greater economic security to those struggling most.

Thus, when we talk about Trump’s following, we are talking about a group of people who are predisposed to lack faith in mainstream politics,  and have been primed to distrust mainstream media for nearly five years. With this in mind, Trump’s Twitter ban could be the nail in the coffin for the public sphere. The exile of Trump from mainstream online platforms could dissuade many of his supporters from ever partaking in meaningful democratic debate or processes ever again.

 Some left-leaning readers may think “Well, fine. Why would we want a group of racist, conspiracy believing voters showing up at the polls every four years? Why should we bother giving a platform to their hateful misinformation or engaging them in debate?”. But the disenfranchisement of any group is a failure of democracy. We cannot pick and choose when we decide to uphold democratic principles. What’s more, anti-establishment fringe groups can be incredibly dangerous. Those that feel disillusioned by a state are far less likely to respect its authority, and are thus far more likely to exhibit the kind of disruptive, illegal and violent behaviour that Trump’s Twitter ban was intended to prevent.

 Whether or not to allow Trump continued access to his online platform was a tough call to make; I do not envy Twitter for having to make it, nor do I condemn the decision they ultimately made. However, I cannot celebrate this ban when I fear that it has left us with a substandard public dialogue, an even more fractured public sphere, and a population that is more disengaged with truth and democracy than ever before.



Recommended by Connie:

 

Karma Abudagga
Previous

Life, Interrupted: On The Year That Has Been But Hasn’t Gone
Next

Traversing the Spider’s Web: Total Digital Integration Under Lockdown