rpersaud14_Doug Mills-PoolGetty Images_trump twitter

Le danger associé à la confiscation de la plateforme de Trump

Jan 13, 2021 Raj Persaud

LONDRES – Les plateformes de médias sociaux ont fini par se montrer hostile envers Donald Trump. Depuis que le président américain a déclenché une violente attaque contre le Capitole le 6 janvier, qui a fait cinq morts, des plateformes comme Twitter (longtemps son mégaphone préféré) ou Shopify (sur laquelle il a vendu des produits dérivés) l'ont interdit. Et Parler – la plate-forme sans modérateur qui est devenue la nouvelle tocade de l'extrême droite et le probable refuge de Trump – a temporairement fermé après que Amazon a expulsé le site de ses services d'hébergement sur le Web.

Les efforts visant à supprimer la plateforme numérique de Trump ont été largement salués comme essentiels pour atténuer « le risque de nouvelles incitations à la violence », selon les termes de la déclaration de Twitter. Mais l'exclusion de Trump des médias sociaux va-t-elle vraiment rendre l'Amérique plus sûre ? Des recherches psychologiques récentes suggèrent que la réponse est non. Après tout, les narcissiques ne réagissent pas bien à l'exclusion sociale.

Il y a évidemment un débat considérable sur la question de savoir si cette dénomination correspond bien au cas de Trump. L'article 7.3 des principes d'éthique médicale de l'American Psychiatric Association – communément appelé « règle Goldwater » – est limpide : les cliniciens doivent s'abstenir de donner publiquement leur avis sur la santé mentale des personnalités publiques qu'ils n'ont pas personnellement examinées.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 24 Comments on this article

Elizabeth Pula Jan 17, 2021

A whole lot more people need to pick Matthew Ehret's Brain too;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yAitkCMvP0&feature=youtu.be

He can express himself exceptionally well in writing, AND he can express himself exceptionally well verbally. He has exceptional cognitive awareness.

It is important to remember that there are always limits to theories. All of us understand the world differently. We communicate our varying awareness continuously, based on our observations and ability either by writing or speaking.

There is no one approach to any theory or any understanding of the world.
- Elizabeth Pula Jan 17, 2021
  
  Bonus:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octoechos_(liturgy)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_music
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_Desert_Road_Survey
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gregg Connolly Jan 17, 2021

the paradox of tolerence, by karl popper Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gregg Connolly Jan 15, 2021

reinstate the fairness doctrine it will kill fox news, talk radio, and other right wing outlets
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry H Jan 15, 2021

People have got this back to front. Free speech is a civilian right, and prevents authorities from gagging people for political reasons. Authorities themselves generally don't need Free Speech legislation to say what they want as they are the authority telling people what to do.
Twitter gagging Trump is something new. In a way this is democracy in action as they are responding to perceived threats by Trump's lies and calls for violence. But up to this point nobody had the power to silence an appointed president. Like Jack said, it's a dangerous precedent. It would seem there now is an authority above the president's authority after all.
- Steve Gokorsch Jan 17, 2021
  
  Well stated Gary. Simply put it is WRONG in the United States to restrict a person's free speech. This Right is granted to all by our Constitution.
  
  The psychological nonsense in this article not withstanding, we as a nation, have turned a corner. We are making a HUGE mistake.
  
  In a few months DJT will no longer be in the news IF the "news outlets" no longer make him their star. But the decision to restrict his access to the people will remain...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public Jan 15, 2021
  
  You are correct that authorities don't need free speech but politicians proposing change need free speech. If there is no free speech for politicians then the incumbents abuse this position (directly or via corporations) to stay in power forever. In Russia, China or Saudi if you say anything against the incumbent regime expect to be severely beaten or poisoned or just outright killed. Donald Trump, as vile a cockroach as he is, deserves equal access to social media as much as Joe Biden did in the run up to the election. Tech firms can add warnings or optional filters but just outright banning him sets a bad precedent for the country, pushing it down a slippery slope that leads to authoritarian rule which eventually leads to stagnation and then finally collapse.
  - Gerry H Jan 16, 2021
    
    Interesting to consider how it would affect politics if politicians had a legal right to express their personal opinions. Not that there is any threat of this happening your own examples make that clear enough. But if senators could not be forced or compelled to vote along party line that's pretty well the end of the two-party system, you would just have a lot of loosely associated independents all pursuing their own ideals.
    Donald Trump deserves equal rights to social media - yes, he's had that his whole life long. Does someone deserve access who just spews an endless stream of lies and insults, and on top of that incites violence against government institutions, perhaps you would like to be a bit clearer on that. Trump abuses his position to the max and that's why this is happening. You can block ISIS form recruiting in the West, you can sue someone who falsely accuses you, but who can stop Trump? Well, Jack Dorsey can, apparently!
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Jan 14, 2021

Here's a new door to open that won't take anybody into Pandora's box by misadventures of anyone.

Here are timely alternatives that especially millions can consider.

This is a critically timed statement from me to everybody, including you.

1. The internet is a "LEARNING" tool. It is a tool for education that is being TERRIBLY MISUSED and MISAPPLIED. This tool has been permitted to be controlled only by the wrong people and only for the wrong people globally. This tool has been permitted to be controlled only by the wrong hands for the wrong reasons. This needs to be corrected, ASAP.

2. Opportunists/Private Stake-holders have been permitted to most terribly take and divert tax revenues and fees from real citizens especially from real citizens of the US, living in the US to especially prey on any and all financial, and time variances between currency valuation of the USD and interest rates to effectively eliminate any and all revenues that could have and should have been directed to local communities for their communal uses, especially from many that are attempting survival in increasing or totally depreciated communities. This has occurred regardless of any racial strategic actions. This has occurred across the nation due to monopolization, misdevelopment of policies and practices of misallocation of funds. This has occurred primarily because of corrupted intent by the most significant participants with the most power to make final decisions of disbursal of funds for various reasons. Some of the reasons are nefarious, rather than reasonable and law-abiding decisions with subsequent appropriate actions.

Citizens need to start transitioning to Web 3.0- the new paradigm with peer-to-peer technologies with hardware and software that is NOT aligned only by, through and for approximately 1,2,3 or 4, meaning a relatively comparative few companies within specific large geographical territories/ with national boundaries. States/nations need to enable 3d-printing manufacturing within their boundaries- owned by citizens- first item to manufacture for global useage is a KLEROTERION.

Start a contest, best company I can think of to sponsor the contest is Raytheon.
There can be a number of winners. The winner gets the in-state contract to manufacture the KLEROTERION. The Kleroterion will be the device used to "VOTE" and "VOTE" for work teams, management teams. and local political representatives to be selected. The device worked just fine ages ago, and needs to be restored, back-to-live-on-camera-action for 2021. The accountability of any and all vote processing can easily be specifically accountable from the community P2P levels. Tallying can be a subcontracted process as contracted by decisions at the community levels to secondary approved software developers and needed API's. First task is to design, then win the contest, announce the winners, establish grant process for manufacture of the devices. Delivery of devices. Devices can be available in a number of designs, colors, usages. They need to be inexpensive, and manufactured ASAP. Present Internet monopolies will need to either willingly fund these tasks, or be forced to fund these initial tasks of design, manufacture and delivery. This initial phase can easily be designed with a certain percentage of capital to be diverted to the local community. No funds can ever be redirected to any of the divested monopolies.

3. PM software applications and API's need to be used to develop plans for business operations, and political operations, contract procedures, with funding from tax revenues, and support initially by the strategized and reasonably timed break-up of the monopolies in the US that I won't name at this time. The decisions for breaking up of the monopolies will have to work through the FTC. and FCC, and state legislatures. Each governor in each state administers the entire instate procedures according to each state's legal systems. No state officials receive any additional payment for these tasks. These tasks are part of their jobs, as servants of their state.

This is a 3-step program. Don't kid yourselves. This is not an easy 3-step program. However, it can be the start of a really big money-making venture that not only diverts. but actually breaks-up a really bad dam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleroterion Get with the French Ambassador to discuss the discovery of the device by one of University Archeological groups. They already have a great design that could be a sourced design if they are cooperative in this assignment to permit the rest of the world to start producing some real cool stuff! It should be possible to get licensing to modify and redesign as appropriate for various populations and source material issues.

I also recommend contacting the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill for software application expertise and work-team director sourcing. They should know some good folks that need jobs and have exceptional work skills.

I also understand that sometimes for some jobs you gotta take whoever walks in the door first. That does NOT mean they are the best anything for the real job at any time or place.
- Michael Public Jan 15, 2021
  
  "best company I can think of to sponsor the contest is Raytheon"
  The maker of the Tomahawk. Why not ask Monsanto and The Trump Organization to join in... /sarcasm - served all day ;-)
  - Elizabeth Pula Jan 17, 2021
    
    Michael, I am absolutely serious about what I have suggested here. This is a real alternative for real manufacturing with a real purpose. The manufacturing needs to be based on a US patented design, US equipment, US sourced materials, US citizen owned, US citizen owned land, US citizen distribution process etc. etc.
    
    I am suggesting RAYTHEON, because RAYTHEON owes me, big time. And besides that, RAYTHEON has the organizational reach authority, political connections, supply-chain mechanisms to MAKE what I am suggesting HAPPEN in the real world. They can move fast, if and when they have a mind to do something!
    
    This is real my dear man. Now, if this suggestion becomes more than just a suggestion and reply on my part, yes, I will even publicly mention why
    RAYTHEON owes me big time in public.
    
    I had already mentioned this to Nouriel Roubini, so this is a second time. I really don't like nor appreciate being forced to repeat myself. Nouriel never once responded back to me! So, I guess I just got a cold shrug, which counts for absolutely "0" in the real world, regardless what I may think or not think about any idea.
    
    This is real!
    - Elizabeth Pula Jan 17, 2021
      
      Hi- I don't know if you know how to pick up a ball and run with it, after some one has tossed. kicked or given it to you. SO, Michael I am giving you the key:
      https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0135
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Jan 14, 2021

It is not " free speech" to create alternative facts out of thin air, and against any rationality, like, but not exclusively, " stop the steal ", and create a propaganda campaign that mobilizes millions of believers and leads to violence, riots, and " hang Mike Pence " among many others extremes. Civil rights are sacred, but they must not be abused. Drawing the lines will continue to be the challenge.
- Michael Public Jan 14, 2021
  
  In a society where most people are reasonable and most people are educated you can have absolute free speech - individuals will self-regulate. But if even a portion of the population is lacking in critical thinking or common sense - words become a weapon that can cause war or revolution. Remember, the 3rd Reich started with only words, but those words incited a World War and then a genocide. In the US, there is considerable effort and money invested into having a Republican mob available to victimize and intimidate those who are politically inconvenient - just as Hitler did. The Democrats have flirted with this too - but I think they have disavowed such tactics for now.
  - Gregg Connolly Jan 17, 2021
    
    the paradox of tolerence, by karl popper Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 13, 2021

The author approaches this from a psychological perspective - as in 'don't tease the zoo animals please!' But the reality is that tech platforms have a geometric effect on social connections - they allow every crackpot to connect to every other and whip up a frenz until a critical mass is reached and they can storm a capital building... or perhaps a nuclear launch facility. It is far from trivial to run an alternative platform because almost every piece of data passes through the data centers owned by the big five or six tech firms. Pirating websites found this out the hard way... today this pastime is near dead and Netflix has a $224bn market cap.
- Prashant Kotak Jan 15, 2021
  
  What you say about the big tech platforms acting as gate keepers over information is certainly true at the moment. The point you made earlier about the remarkably effective job the CCP has done in maintaining control over information is also absolutely correct. But neither is a done deal yet.
  
  Focusing on the power of the US tech platforms, early attempts by the likes of Napster etc have been suppressed, but I don't believe this is a winnable fight for the tech giants in the long run. To illustrate in practical terms, there is already pretty much no digital asset - piece of music, or book, or movie content, etc, I cannot get a hold of without paying for it if I so choose. Not that I do this I hasten to add, but I can go to any number of torrents or to usenet or even to the darknet.
  
  In effect, what has happened is the giant tech platforms, having got in on the ground floor, are making versions of extrajudicial rules that are essentially self serving. The social media platforms and the content provider platforms operating the rental models are on a good gig and therefore simply protecting their patch like any friendly neighborhood mafiosos. They have traction for now and will make as much money as they can meanwhile but their model is not sustainable. The model wherby people pay Apple and Netflix etc to rent content will come under pressure, because I feel the model is fragile, even though the companies are seemingly all-powerful at the moment.
  
  We will now see a power struggle between the tech companies and governments over who has ultimate control. The Chinese government is way ahead of it's western counterparts in this of course. I nevertheless believe the tech companies will emerge the winners in both cases. But that is not the end of it. I believe the big tech companies themselves will lose control over content and information - to millions of bit players who themselves use tech to bypass and outmanoeuvre the tech giants. Essentially rendering copyright/IPR law unpolicable and unenforceable.
  
  The more I look at the nature of data and information, the more I'm convinced that the innate nature of *all* information is to simply proliferate over time and space. Nothing I have seen to date counteracts that argument.
  - Michael Public Jan 15, 2021
    
    Rewind five years and big tech was mostly politics agnostic. Then the whole fake/news Donald Trump election stuff happened. Now they have chosen a side and are self appointing themselves as political censors. I think anyone can see this is a bad development for any democracy. As you say, this matter is far from decided in America. In China, it would require some new tech innovation that the government cannot control before things change - for now, it is locked down better than the US capital for Biden's upcoming inauguration.
    - Bernhard Kopp Jan 15, 2021
      
      Trump has still multiple channels of communication available to him. " Free speech " was never put into question. Governance is not only communication and propaganda. No leviathan-tech-platform has ever hindered the Trump administration to manage the Corona-crisis differently, easily save some 100,000 - 150,000 lives, and materially reduce the economic damage. This would have been governance and not just the volume on the megaphone from the bully-pulpit.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Pitt Jan 13, 2021

Where is the law. Didn’t that work with Terrorism?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prashant Kotak Jan 13, 2021

Deplatforming Trump or not, is an irrelevance. What Trump's actions and reactions to him have bought to a head, is a fight over the extent to which governments are now beholden to the leviathan tech companies . And notwithstanding the Trump tantrums, the Social Media and Messaging giants (Twitter, Facebook etc) are the least of it. The really lethal dependence is on different companies who hold the reigns to tech infrastructure - Enterprise Cloud Platforms, Search Engines, Telecomms platforms, top end Chip makers, Operating Systems makers, etc - Microsoft, Google, Cisco etc.

Governments, having suddenly been slapped awake and smelling the rather unpleasant covfefe, will now inevitably attempt, over the next months and years, to wrench back control via the usual routes: regulators, regulations, legislation, rules and laws, anti-trust, company breakup, even company nationalisations (esp. China will look to do this) etc.

I posit, none of this has any chance of actually succeeding. Why do I say this? Because fundamentals about the nature and consequences of ubiquitous computation are plain flat not understood by administrators. It's the reason why the very obvious possibility of corporations creating extraneous defacto law was ignored all this time (when it was obvious they could do this), and why suddenly the avalanche of implications are now dawning in the heads of politicians. There is a blind spot about the fact that algorithms and data are not amenable to governance in the same way human societies and physical assets can be governed. In fact, I don't see that ultimately they can be governed at all. There are many, many ways to show this, but it will only be believed once all attempts fail repeatedly. Although, the fight will play out differently in countries who originate the tech versus those who are entirely dependent on bought-in tech - and the different class of countries will fail in different ways. For example, the CCP is not the type of entity to accept loss of control without a vicious fight, so the fight in China with the tech companies is likely to get, very, um, unpleasant. Those countries/entities that don't produce their own tech will now look for ways to make the platforms themselves, eg the EU - although they may as well not bother for all the good it will do them. Because another fundamental is that a breakup of the tech giants worldwide, and a fragmented tech landscape, won't slow down the rate at which tech becomes ungovernable, it will speed it up.
- Michael Public Jan 13, 2021
  
  I might add that in China the administrators understand the power of tech. As far as I can tell, their administration have effectively locked down information technology.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall#Effectiveness_and_impact
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public Jan 13, 2021
  
  A story as old as time. Business, politics and cultural forces attempt to dominate each other for ultimate power. One always surges ahead - e.g. business in the US, politics in China (and culture in Iran). Inevitably, the attempted coup comes - but it almost never works because of the previous loyalties - e.g. in the US, politicians are loyal to their donor corporations (via SUPERPACS or whatever) and do not bite the hand that feeds, likewise in China, Jack Ma recently uttered 'a discouraging word' about financial regulation by the government and now his empire is being torn apart, brick-by-brick, to say nothing of him being mysteriously absent from public for a couple months now. The real solution in a system where they each, business-politics-culture, do what they are good at but are unable to overstep the mark and dominate the others. It would sure be difficult to implement, but it would put paid to a never-ending vicious cycle of which the looming tech-government war in the US is just the latest chapter.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/xTnwWlhfr

Cookies and Privacy

Le danger associé à la confiscation de la plateforme de Trump

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Why Trump Cries Electoral Fraud

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Le danger associé à la confiscation de la plateforme de Trump

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification