Social media has rapidly risen as the main avenue of discourse, statistics show that there are nearly 3.78 billion social media users¹, Facebook being the biggest of platforms with 1.93 billion daily active users². Social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, Messenger, and YouTube are becoming the main sources of news and avenues for discourse; however, there is cause for concern prompted by the ban of Donald Trump from all social media platforms. While still the sitting president, Trump was simultaneously banned from all social media platforms following the events of January 6th, 2021³. It is becoming clear that although social media is a great tool for open communication, it may not be as open nor as welcoming as it seems. These platforms are controlled by a small number of multinational companies and have vague terms of service allowing them to act as they please without much justification. As social media becomes more prominent, the power it wields also increases. It is imperative that social media platforms are not allowed to censor speech especially given that the rules are very vague, they use these rules to censor and ban speech arbitrarily and they are private entities who hold too much influence over public and democratic discourse given that they are not democratically elected themselves.

Donald Trump was banned from all social media platforms for comments he made in regard to the events of January 6th, 2021. Prior to this ban, it was a common phenomenon for Trump to sound off on policy decisions, world events, events that he would be hosting, and actions he would be taking as the President of the United States. His ban not only occurred while he was still the sitting president but also removed a large avenue for which he used to connect with the country. Many were quick to celebrate this ban due to the controversial nature of Trump and his rhetoric⁴; however, it does reveal how powerful social media monopolies are in censoring speech. Trump was banned from all social media platforms for statements he specifically made on Twitter. This sets a few unsettling precedents as it shows that social media terms of service are not applied consistently, and that people can be banned from a platform for things that they said on another platform or off platform. There are numerous occasions where Trump violated terms of service; however, his ban came at a time where the statements he made were not clearly in violation. It also shows that if the President of the United States can be censored then anyone can. This effectively puts an immense amount of power into the hands of people and corporations who were not democratically elected and who do not have any tangible means of oversight.

When the Trump ban is brought up many people are quick to dismiss these concerns of social media censorship as propaganda, but what they fail to understand is that this is not the first time it has happened. A prominent example is when, ahead of the Ugandan general election, Facebook banned some accounts linked to the ruling National Resistance Movement⁵. In response to this the government of Uganda shutdown access to social media and the internet. President Yoweri Museveni asserted that the social media platforms were “deciding who is good and who is bad”⁵. Press Secretary Don Wanyama’s Facebook account was also affected in the ban wave. In an interview with BBC, he commented that the platform was overstepping its boundaries. “It is simply a platform”, Wanyama states, “It should not morph into a political party. There must be regulation of these platforms and independent oversight bodies.”⁵ In a statement, Facebook asserted that it acted in that manner after an investigation was conducted where they found that the accounts were created to undermine political discourse⁵. In this case Facebook, an American company, was able to affect the way that democratic discourse was held in another country and by whom. In this way social media platforms can become a tool for regime changes where certain people and accounts can be suppressed due to supposed terms of service violations.

A popular point that is brought up when social media censorship is mentioned is that these are private companies, and they have a right to enforce their rules. This proves to be problematic. Just because a company is private in nature does not mean that they should be given free reign. Private companies must still adhere to the laws of the land. A company like Nike cannot pay their employees 5 dollars an hour because they must obey minimum wage laws. In the same way, social media platforms must adhere to free speech laws because they play a huge role in public discourse. Since the terms of service on these platforms are quite vague, it is difficult to understand what counts as censorable speech. In this way social media platforms are able to arbitrarily regulate speech and suppress speech without any justification. Social media played a crucial role in spreading awareness for the Black Lives Matter movement in its fight against police brutality. A similar protest had occurred in India when governments mobilized the police against those who were protesting farming laws⁶. Twitter shut down dozens of accounts at the government's request as the tweets posed ‘a grave threat to public order’⁶. This arbitrary application of the rules sets an undesirable precedent as it allows for social media to regulate, at their whim, what is good or bad speech.

Social media, in its rise to prominence, has benefited society immensely but it has also expanded its influence dramatically to the point of censorship. When the sitting President of the United States is banned from these platforms, there is not much hope for anyone else in preventing this form of censorship. Social media platforms have very vague sets of rules which can be applied in almost any circumstance with very little ability to combat this type of censorship. It is the most effective tool for communication in the technological era. It is not an optimal solution for people to use other means of communication or to create their own platform due the monopolistic nature of these platforms. Government regulation is required in order to ensure that social media platforms are adhering to free speech laws, making their terms of service clear, and applying their rules objectively and without bias.