Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Taylor Owen is the director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill and the host of the Big Tech podcast.

Last week, social-media companies held hands, plugged their noses and jumped together, suspending the President of the United States from their platforms and delivering, in effect, the de-platforming of Donald Trump, which many thought was long overdue.

The kindest interpretation of this move is that the platforms, responding to the insurrection in Washington, acted swiftly and decisively to protect the country from further unrest, marking an evolution from their youthful and naive pretenses of neutrality to a more mature stature as responsible gatekeepers. More cynically, this moment could be seen as a deferential move for an incoming president whose party now has a lock on the White House and Congress, done in the dying days of an administration that these very same companies had welcomed for four years.

Story continues below advertisement

The ban may well be all of these things. But it is also a distraction from the core challenges we continue to face in our online ecosystem.

Every social-media platform has different content moderation policies and systems, and while all have the veneer of technocratic due process, in reality they all operate in a largely ad-hoc manner, applying policies differently to each of their billions of global users. Last week’s events demonstrated the failure of this approach. Just take Facebook, which arguably takes content moderation more seriously than other platforms. It’s far from obvious how Mr. Trump’s disqualifying posts were worse than previous ones, and why Facebook should ban him while other divisive world leaders remain, let alone the untold other egregious violations by political figures and citizens alike. And as legal scholar Evelyn Douek pointed out, Facebook’s new oversight board, intended to be an arm’s-length adjudicator of its policies, can’t even review the suspension because they are only mandated to review posts that are taken down, not accounts – an abdication of responsibility, on a technicality.

A focus on the banning of Mr. Trump’s accounts also distracts from the power displayed by recent de-platforming efforts. Parler, which promotes itself as a free-speech social-media haven for its more than 12 million users, has become home to some of the more toxic elements of U.S. politics, including the organizers of the Stop the Steal conspiracy theory and the violent insurrection at the Capitol. In response, Google and Apple have banned new Parler downloads from their app stores; Amazon’s AWS has announced it would kick Parler off its servers entirely. This de-platforming of a platform, however justified, demonstrates the consequences of market concentration: companies that own the infrastructure can make unilateral decisions about the companies that use it, and in so doing radically shape the nature of political and economic activity.

Ultimately, playing whack-a-mole with bad content, including many of Mr. Trump’s tweets, confuses the symptoms for the structural elements of the problem. Conspiracy movements such as QAnon, for instance, did not arise organically; they grew as a function of the platforms’ own design and business models.

Platforms make money by using vast amounts of data about users to determine how to target content designed to influence our behaviour (to sell ads), and how to hold our attention (so we see more ads). To manage the mind-boggling scale required – Facebook, for one, handles more than 100 billion transactions a day – platforms use either vast teams of content moderators, or highly imperfect AI, which increasingly dictate the character of our public sphere. This scale is simply impossible to manage responsibly, and the result is systemic failure. One internal Facebook study, for instance, found that 64 per cent of all new users joining extremist groups were a result of its recommendation tools, while the New York Times reported that, after the U.S. election, “Facebook’s algorithm drove 100 new people to join the first ‘Stop The Steal’ group every 10 seconds.”

These platform companies have become so large that we can no longer rely on the free market to correct for potential harms. And if the market can’t address that power imbalance, then the only alternative is democratic governance. In the interests of political expediency and a hope that the market could regulate itself, governments have left the governance of the digital domain to a handful of private companies, whose goals may or may not be aligned with the public good. This approach has failed. And so democratic governments must now lead difficult conversations: about what speech should be allowed online, about implementing accountability and transparency mechanisms for the data-driven economy, and about the necessity of competition in what has become an oligarchic industry.

Banning Mr. Trump’s tweets won’t begin to address the harms so clearly on display this week. Only these debates can.

Story continues below advertisement

Editor’s note: (Jan. 22, 2021) An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that the Ryerson University Social Media Lab had done a study on the "Stop the Steal" Facebook group. That information was in fact based on reporting by the New York Times.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies