Much of the criticism of social media for not banning Trump is so UScentric. Imagine you run a company that also operates in countries with merely troubling heads over time: Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Singapore, Thailand (nevermind the worst., e.g., Philippines, China...) 1/
And then what does banning these bad heads of state accomplish? Does it protect their populaces from them? They have media. They have followers. Should not citizens judge their leaders? Do you really want social media companies to act as literal kingmakers? 2/
Thought experiment: Turn off Facebook & Twitter tomorrow. Is the world a better place? Have racism & inequity been solved? Or did you just waste time fighting a shadow puppet of the real problems in society? Technology isn't the cause anymore than printing was. People are. 3/
None of this is to say that the platforms should go along with, encourage, amplify the bad rulers' dictates. I've been arguing strenuously that they--especially Facebook--need to grow a spine and model the behavior of standing up against their bile. 4/
But let's just be honest about how much any of the changes people are demanding are going to do. "Eliminate hate speech!" they call. First, define hate. Who defines it? What may be hated: racists? dictators? murdering police? Trump? I hate him plenty. Want to ban that? 5/
So you're not really trying to ban hate speech. You're trying to ban speech against that hates which you love. OK. I get that. But is banning speech the way to win the day? We used to not believe than in the U.S.... until everyone could speak. 6/
