Now that Trump has been banned, logic says social media must go further

Twitter and the like can’t just stop at banning Trump, they’ve opened the box now and, like it or not, the nettle must be grasped by human hands, not just algorithms, writes Chris Blackhurst

By moving against Trump they’ve underscored their weaknesses, not their strengths. They’re on a very slippery slope (AP)

Here is a strange phenomenon. Two companies take decisions that cause their share prices to plummet, wiping billions off their respective values – and their employees cheer.

Sounds weird, but that’s what happened when Twitter and Facebook barred Donald Trump after the Capitol invasion. Twitter’s stock immediately fell 4.5 per cent, losing $5bn, on the news. Facebook shares crashed 4.5 per cent, erasing $33.6bn in market capitalisation.

Meanwhile, staff at both social networks celebrated. Trump did not sit comfortably with their west coast, liberal, tech values, so good riddance – among their peers they could hold their heads up high. But it’s a funny business that bans one of its biggest customers, someone who acts as a draw for others, and to a certain section of society gives the enterprise a credibility it might not otherwise possess.

Rather than high-fiving and mutually congratulating, those workers would be better advised to wonder what they have done, what have we unleashed here? For the fact is their business models are not set up to behave in this fashion. Theirs are open-to-all platforms, run according to algorithms, to machines. They want viewers to linger as long as possible on the page and to take in the accompanying paid-for advertising that generates their vast revenues.

Yes, they’re capable of using humans to make judgement calls, and in response to protests they and other social media operators have drawn up protocols, rules, panels, to enforce what is acceptable and what isn’t. In reality, though, to date this has been tinkering at the edges. Every day, thousands of items are posted on their sites that many people regard as offensive and harmful, that do not go anywhere near some self-appointed taste police. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter – discuss, and if you’re an algorithm, particular good luck.

In many respects their intervention is welcome. Declaration of interest: I am on the advisory board of CUTI which stands for Clean Up the Internet, a charity that campaigns for action to increase civility and respect online, and to reduce bullying, trolling, intimidation, and misinformation. I’ve long held the view that Twitter, Facebook and the rest are dangerous because they wash their hands of caring. That’s not their business, it’s not what they do, it doesn’t sit with how they work, how they make their money.

By moving against Trump they’ve underscored their weaknesses not their strengths. They’re on a very slippery slope and the trouble is they do not have the wherewithal to negotiate it safely – skiers setting off without lessons and proper equipment.

Twitter and Facebook liked it that way. They basked in his audience numbers, and they loved how the president of the United States was using them to communicate with the world

Having determined that Trump is to go, where do they stop? Do they prohibit his supporters, do they go after other rabble-rousers and inducers of violence? What about climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, pro-lifers, are they too, all of them, to be ejected? By putting the black spot on Trump, are they not displaying a parochial interest – he’s American, he’s their president, but what about other leaders in the world who also spout lies and abuse, don’t they also matter?

Why now? After all, it’s not as if Trump said much that was new to prompt the plug being pulled, he’s been saying the same stuff for years and while they did attempt to neuter his falsehoods over the recent election result there was plenty that went before. That’s how he attracted many of his 88 million followers, by peddling loony tunes. He directed much of his fire towards the “fake news” outlets, but let’s face it, how many of us, who hold the same news organisations he attacked in high esteem, still read his outpourings? I know I did. Sure as clockwork, when I looked at Twitter first thing in the morning (I know, sad) there would be a salvo from Potus and, more often than not, I would shake my head and smile.

Twitter and Facebook liked it that way. They basked in his audience numbers, and they loved how the president of the United States was using them to communicate with the world. Trump was regarded as a pioneer – other conservative politicians and serious-minded business figures who previously turned up their noses at using social media, at putting their thoughts into short, snappy messages, saw the success he was having and followed suit.

Now, though, the social media companies have arbitrarily said “enough”. That’s great, as I’ve said I’m all for them displaying responsibility. But they have to mean it. Logic says they can’t merely single out Trump, they have to go further. Brilliant, but in that case they have to undergo a cultural shift – more reliance on humans, less dependence on algorithms. That, though, is not how they’re made up, it’s not in their management or operational DNA. Investors, certainly, are unlikely to appreciate a drop in popularity because they’ve scrapped some of their most popular users.

I suspect that having done what felt right after the Capitol assault, the knee-jerk response is now being regretted, certainly in their higher echelons. It was not fully thought through, the consequences were not realised, not in a business sense. But they did it, and they’re left with a major headache. They’ve only got themselves to blame, it’s been a long time coming.