In a note circulated yesterday morning, I was interested in the most recent tweets-controversial Donald Trump. I was wondering what would be the reaction of the leaders of Twitter.
If, hitherto, you had refused to intervene to clear or qualify the writings of the president, we learned later in the day that we had decided to accompany the “tweets” of links to reliable sources. You guess that Donald Trump was not going to accept the situation without reacting to it.
The president returned to the load by picking up an old accusation that it is clear on a regular basis: social networks reduce to silence the voices of the most conservative. It would therefore be avoid a repetition of this form of propaganda in forcing the various platforms, to cease their activities or in the regulating.
I pass in addition to the limits of presidential power in this area for me to focus on the scope of the charges directed against social networks. The bias against the more conservative elements is real? Would you be surprised that I respond not? The omnipresence of the president on Twitter and the number of publications misleading or aggressive should be enough to prove it.
By reacting the way Donald Trump speaks once more to his electoral base. A survey conducted earlier this year shows that 65% of those who define themselves as conservatives believe to be victims of a bias in social networks, and this, even if there is no evidence to validate any form of discrimination. It is also noted that 66% of them have lost trust in Facebook.
If you come back to read my blog regularly, you may recall seeing a ticket written in February. I explained how the team of Donald Trump leverages Facebook to deploy a whole arsenal of disinformation. The HEADQUARTERS of the presidential campaign, based in Virginia, is nicknamed the death Star.
If all the election teams use social media platforms to promote a program or an application, no other organization invests as much (about a billion) that the campaign of Donald Trump. The team relay of the info on Facebook and on Twitter is the most numerous and probably the most qualified of all.
It is therefore ridiculous to consider seriously the threat to the president. If he has a really engaging when he attacks the party taken progressive to some media, he has no credibility when it turns against Facebook or Twitter. One could even argue that, without these two giants, the phenomenon Trump would never have taken on such a scale.
More than ever, all eyes are focused on the leaders of the major platforms. How does one define or circumscribe the freedom of expression? If the social networks are already adopting one or another form of regulation, can we consider that this is enough? The State, as suggested by Donald Trump, should he get involved?