Twitter restricted many of U.S. President Donald Trump's posts throughout the U.S. election process. Its justification was not the violation of rules such as "not praising violence" or "not resorting to hate speech," which allegedly bind all users. Twitter labeled some of Trump's tweets as "unsubstantiated" and even some of them as "disinformation."
Are a politician's political statements or claims supposed to be objective?
For which of Twitter's users is such sensitivity observed? Is each tweet that is posted by users who express their opinions examined to see whether it is real or well-founded?
Of course not. And why are there no criteria when it comes to the political remarks of Joe Biden or any other Democrat?
This is arbitrary censorship. It is known that Twitter and some technology companies and media outlets supported Biden in the U.S. elections. They became a party and had their own politics during the campaign process.
While even some Democrat and so-called libertarian journalists are trying to find justification for Twitter's censorship, Jack Dorsey, the company's CEO, has already admitted to the interference.
Answering questions from senators along with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg during a session of the U.S. Senate Justice Committee, Dorsey said that they interfered with 300,000 tweets during the election process.
He also acknowledged that censoring the New York Post, which published news against Biden and his son Hunter Biden, was a "mistake." So will this matter be dropped by admitting the disgrace as a "mistake"? Is it normal for Twitter, which confirms the legitimacy of even heads of states by granting a blue tick, to have such power that even states do not have?
At this point, Twitter is said to be a medium where one can be a member at request. It is claimed that Twitter has the right to editorial intervention and to remove content that is contrary to its political preferences, just like newspapers or television channels that do not include content that does not comply with their broadcasting policies.
First of all, Twitter is not an electronic newspaper that features its own unique views. It is a platform that forms a basis for the posts of users, each of whom is their own newspaper.
It owes its current monopolistic position to this feature, which it announced at the beginning. Even Twitter itself fends off legal sanctions over posts with this claim of "neutrality." This is how it pleads in the courts.
After all, the authority and right to editorial intervention bring responsibility for the content of the publication, as is the case with newspapers and TV stations.
So platforms like Twitter and Facebook do not have the right to decide who can express themselves, how much and within what limits.
However, after Biden was officially declared the winner of the election, we can expect that this investigation process in the U.S. Senate will also ease off and be forgotten over time.
I never thought I would need to ask this: Is Trump the only one defending freedom of expression?