there is still a lot of hate and anger reserved for newspaper magnate Rupert Murdoch. As recently as September 2020

a dangerous terrorist planning a bombing? Whilst that in itself is a debate, we’re not talking about a terrorist, we’re talking about a democratically elected President and leader of the free world.
At what point are we happy to accept unaccountable tech billionaires becoming our moral arbiters?
People will say Trump hasn’t been de-platformed. This, of course, is always a misnomer. Banning him from every social media service means his reach — even as President — is vastly reduced and millions of people will no longer receive his message. By banning Trump they’re banning people from what they can and can’t hear — what they will and will not hear.
Furthermore, the ban extends to much pro-Trump discourse online. Even his supporters are being gagged.
At what point does Mark Zuckerberg (for example) — who is the unelected, unaccountable CEO and Chairman of a multinational conglomerate that controls 2.7 billion people’s communication, through Facebook, Messenger, Instagram and Whatsapp — decide what messages from an elected President are and are not acceptable for us to hear or see?
As mentioned, the idea of the phone company cutting your service because they don’t like what you said is ludicrous, but Zuckerberg has a stranglehold on the conversations of nearly half the world’s population, way more than a telephone company could ever dream of, and we’re happy he’s making moral arbitration on our behalf?
On the left of the political spectrum — at least in the UK — there is still a lot of hate and anger reserved for newspaper magnate Rupert Murdoch. As recently as September 2020, Extinction Rebellion blocked access to three printing presses owned by his media organisation in a bid to stop his papers hitting the newsstands. [5]

http://www.repfiles.us/war/video-thunder-vs-nuggets-live-tv06.html

http://www.repfiles.us/war/video-pelicans-vs-jazz-Live-tv06.html

http://www.repfiles.us/war/video-pelicans-vs-jazz-Live-tv04.html

http://www.repfiles.us/war/video-pelicans-vs-jazz-Live-tv05.html

http://www.repfiles.us/war/video-thunder-vs-nuggets-live-tv01.html

Where then, I ask, is the same outrage reserved for the new white, billionaire media moguls? Murdoch printed papers with views not liked by everyone, but Jack Dorsey (Twitter) or Mark Zuckerberg not only have far wider-reaching influence than Murdoch’s old-world printing presses had, but they can also actually ban and censor conversations and people, including elected officials. Which of course, they have done.
There has been a disappointing amount of kickback against Trump’s across-the-board ban. And it really is across the board. As of the time of writing, Trump and pro-Trump accounts, have been banned or severely restricted from Discord, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, Pinterest, Shopify (Trump’s official merch), Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch and YouTube. [6]
This is a standing President of a democratic, free nation. It’s staggering this move was made and even more staggering that by law, it’s allowed.
The Rubicon has now been crossed. Social media companies are now emboldened, a new, dangerous precedent has been set.
It seems Twitter are even violating their old ethos to never ban political leaders. In a 2018 blog post they wrote: “There’s been a lot of discussion about political figures and world leaders on Twitter, and we want to share our stance. Twitter is here to serve and help advance the global, public conversation. Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society. Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.” [7]
Be in no doubt, if Dorsey and co. understand they can pull off Trump’s ban with impunity, they can do anything. They practically do anyway. Zuckerberg has also reneged on his promise to not scrape information from Whatsapp by changing their terms and conditions this week, now forcing all users to share phone status, location ISPs and various other information. [8]
These are not trustworthy organisations.
Social media has escape regulation thus far by claiming they are merely a platform, even though for the longest time they have acted as curators of content, editors of content and push their own political agendas. Zuckerberg freely admitted Silicon Valley is an “extremely left-leaning place” when questioned by the Senate. [9]
I truly believe there will be a day — an incident, some sort of catalyst — when everyone realises big tech dictating who has and hasn’t got a platform is severely problematic. We will then scrabble around, after the damage is already done, to try and even the playing field, to try and regain balance from these tech giants and their super powerful billionaire CEOs.
Unfortunately, until that point, people will still cheer when a handful of elitist media moguls act as your self-appointed moral compass with zero accountability.