Cyberspace: Why we should hold global tech giants ‘very accountable’ ─President Trump

*Former United States President Donald Trump at a recent media briefing said ‘we’re going to hold big tech very accountable…. If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone’

*President Trump has no case as the First Amendment is designed to protect the media from the President, not the other way around, say tech companies

Gbenga Kayode | ConsumerConnect

Sequel to his removed from social media sites after alleged role in the January 6, 2021, unprecedented insurrection on the Congress in Washington, D.C., United States (US), former President Donald Trump has teased he could create his own platform.

Trump, subsequently, has sued Facebook Incorporated, Twitter Incorporated, Alphabet Incorporated’s Google and their Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), raising the stakes in his battle against the global technology giants and social media platforms who have blocked him ever since he left office as President.

Former US President Donald Trump

It was learnt the erstwhile US President at a press conference Wednesday, July 7, 2021, at his Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey, as an apparent move to defend First Amendment rights, filed three separate class-action lawsuits in Federal court, in Florida, against the tech giants and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai respectively.

Reports indicated that Trump’s lawsuits, which the legal team is being led by John P. Coale, are seeking court orders to restore his social-media accounts on the three platforms, along with punitive damages, to ensure other users cannot be banned or flagged by the tech giants any longer.

During the press conference, Trump said: “We’re going to hold big tech very accountable.

“If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.”

ConsumerConnect reports Trump is seeking to overturn a Federal law that shields Internet companies from liability for content posted by users.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act in the US also protects social media platforms from lawsuits accusing them of unfairly removing posts or accounts, among other legal challenges.

Recall that Twitter permanently banned Trump January this year, for his role in stoking the mob that attacked the US Capitol January 6 in a deadly riot to stop the counting of Electoral College votes for President Joe Biden.

In July, Facebook also announced Trump would remain suspended from its networks for at least two years, with the possibility of being reinstated in 2023, if risk to public safety has subsided.

Likewise, YouTube, Google’s giant video service, also has frozen Trump’s account following the deadly riot at the Capitol.

The former President’s videos are still accessible, but he is not permitted to post new videos on the platform.

The Global technology CEOs – L-R: Sundar Pichai (Google), Jack Dorsey (Twitter), and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)  Photo Collage: DynaImage

Hitherto during his Presidency in the White House, Trump had used Twitter for everything from insulting rivals to major policy announcements, and he relied on Facebook especially to raise money from small-Dollar donors.

Incidentally, a Florida law that was supposed to go into effect July 1 prohibiting social media platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates was blocked by a federal judge at the time.

Likening the state’s law to “burning the house to roast a pig,” US District Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee said the legislation passed by a Republican legislature and a priority of Governor Ron DeSantis, violates the companies’ free speech rights.

The cases are: Trump et al v Twitter Inc, et al, 21-cv-22441, Trump et al v Facebook Inc et al, 21-cv-22440, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami) and Trump et al v YouTube LLC et al, 21-cv-61384, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).

Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s Chief Executive, has said that the company will reverse its policy when it decides that the “risk of violence has decreased,” without providing details, agency report said.

However, Facebook, Google and Twitter reportedly declined to comment on the suits, which were criticised by tech-funded advocacy groups.

NetChoice, whose members include Amazon and other tech companies, said the action shows a “deliberate misunderstanding of the First Amendment” and is without merit.

Steve DelBianco, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), NetChoice, in a statement said: “President Trump has no case. The First Amendment is designed to protect the media from the President, not the other way around.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association in the country, whose members include Facebook, Twitter and Google, in a statement noted that digital services have the right to enforce their terms of service and “frivolous class action litigation will not change the fact that users, even US presidents, have to abide by the rules they agreed to.”

Similarly, Joshua Davis, a professor at University of San Francisco’s Law School, agreed Trump’s legal argument was “weak”, but said politics may inspire some judges to rule differently.

According to Prof. Davis, Trump is very likely to lose the cases “on the legal merits.

“Having said that, there are political movements afoot that probably make it attractive to conservative judges who I think are concerned about the effects of social media on conservative causes and also more liberal judges who are concerned about the power that social media commands.”

Trump and the Republican National Committee began blasting fundraising solicitations almost immediately, including one appeal seeking donations “to show your support for President Trump’s lawsuit against Big Tech.”

Though Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms from lawsuits accusing them of unfairly removing posts or accounts, among others, the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing tech companies to leave up or take down certain categories of posts, according to report.

It is noted that the companies are private, and therefore, not subject to First Amendment claims from users and have liability protections under Section 230.

However, in his latest sweeping lawsuits, the former US President is arguing that the big tech giants worked with the government to censor Americans, and thus are “state actors” who can be sued.

The banishment of Trump by major tech platforms in January further re-ignited Republican calls to revoke the legal shield.

They contended that it has enabled global social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, to censor conservative viewpoints on their platforms.

Tech companies, report added, have largely resisted changes to the law, fearing that the proliferation of lawsuits will force them to clamp down on the free-flowing user-generated content.

Nonetheless, both Facebook’s Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Dorsey have expressed openness in recent months to Section 230 reforms.

Kindly Share This Story