As much as I agree that Trump’s social media activity was a net negative (by a longshot) and that the cool down period was warranted after the riot at the capitol, I worry about the implications of it being acceptable for these companies to permanently shut down unpopular speech. Someone’s going to have to show me how many accounts were shut down this last summer when cities were being looted and destroyed and activities were being coordinated through any number of social media platforms and web services to see if the rules are being applied even handedly. Note, that’s not to say I’m defending either of these events (check my history). I disagreed with both, but feel the President has a higher bar when it comes to his words and actions.
The companies have a right to ban or accept content just like any private enterprise. But they have amassed so much influence and have such an outsized impact on communication these days that huge parts of the public are going to see this as them being shunned. I think this will only create more resentment that their voices aren’t being heard and we’re likely to see other huge demonstrations so they can express their anger. I’m not sure what the solution is but I think they at least need to be more surgical in shutting down accounts and maybe not permanently. Also some transparency would help frame the debate as to whether or not it’s only one side being targeted.