I think a big friction point of the debate over the banning of Trump from Twitter boils down to one question: is social media considered a public good?
Because, here's the thing. Obviously, and this is from someone in the middle that tends to lean right, the majority of the nation and world has wished that he was banned. Regardless of whether or not you support Trump's policies, I think the majority of human beings can agree that he was petulant, unprofessional, and outright dishonest in his social media presence.
He shared dishonest and unreputable/extremist news sources (again, this is from someone that consumes conservative media, and I will say that Qanon, Breitbart, etc, is not acceptable for the leader of the free world, or generally most people, to post to the masses, especially as proof alongside actual journalistic sources), legitimizing them by being promoted by the president, giving them a mouthpiece to spread other dishonest or radical rhetoric.
He used his presence to interfere in the economy, by telling people not to buy from certain stores (the case I'm talking about is because Ivanka had a deal that fell through with the company, I forget which, and he was trying to influence it), which the president is not supposed to do.
He also conducted smear campaigns and constant barrages of insults at opponents of all kinds. Not thoughtful, heated debate, but just insults, which normalized it for both sides of the aisle and further destroyed bipartisan discourse.
Even if you only agree with me on one of these points being valid (even though all of them are true and documented), a president should do none of these things, as they're supposed to set the supreme example for not just the US, but for the free world to follow. Again, I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about personal conduct.
So I think it's fairly established that most people think he deserves to be deplatformed, or even if they don't think he deserves it/is entitled to his rights, it's safe to assume they wish he would shut up, or tone it down and act more professionally. Essentially, if this man was acting this way on the internet and wasn't the president/representative of a party that includes half the nation, he would be an internet villain/pariah.
However, even if the majority of people wish he would shut up, or would love for him to be deplatformed, the reason this is being decried is because of the implications of the action. The president has been censored, and does that set a precedent that political censorship is now going to become commonplace? Political social media bans have almost exclusively been of conservatives, despite both sides committing egregious misconduct and unprofessionalism. I would chalk this up to the fact that social media users, as well as most founders, lean left, and therefore have a bias that makes the conduct seem unbalanced.
But I digress.
I personally am concerned about the precedent this sets as well, but simultaneously I've wanted that oaf to shut up for half a decade now (a big part of my candidate choice is how the conduct and carry themselves, as I care greatly for geopolitics and grand strategy, and professionalism is a vital component).
But the arguing about it isn't going to help solve anything. The argument we need to have is: is social media a public good? Or should it be run as a private company providing a service? If so, that means that censorship, even of the politically biased variety, is justified, as it is at the companies' discretion.
This, technically speaking, should be the free market/libertarian/libright perspective, as it promotes limited government and independent action of actors in a free market.
However, many conservatives seem to be abandoning this small government perspective because the precedent and implication for a dystopian censorship of only conservative entities (or maybe just strict censorship in general), is terrifying. The only way to mitigate this that I see would be to consider social media a public good, as then the companies would have to be held accountable in preserving constitutional rights. However, this could lead to a nationalization/federalization of social media, and then the state controls the flow of information, and we're right back at dystopia.
A further layer on this is, if social media is not a public good, is the internet? And if that answer is yes, then do these companies have obligation to preserve constitutional rights because they are dispensing their service via a public good?
I think these are the true questions, and important ones at that. I think that this discourse can be civil, as it has opportunity for the left to understand advocating free market/limited government policies to better society (letting social media companies act independently in order to be able to ban people at their discretion), and the right to understand advocating for government oversight/regulation to preserve freedoms (considering social media as a public good to hold companies accountable for the preservation of free speech).
It's a very weird, mirror world, inverted beliefs kind of scenario, but I think it is a really good starting point for civil discourse and the depolarization of politics, if the debate catches on.
