President Trump has been accused of provoking his supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol Hill. Social media platforms have been closing down his counts one after another, which has caused a heated debate. There are two issues behind this matter: 1. whether what Trump said is inappropriate. This is a relatively easy question as his comments related to the matter has been recorded; 2. how should the tech giants use their power. This is a significantly more difficult question, and no answer could please the majority of people.

The U.S. Congress was in the process of confirming the elected president when the Capitol Hill clash happened. In the eyes of the mobs, this process is injustice. They believe there was a serious “fraud” in the election, so they must use direct action to stop it. The problem is, Trump has already lost 61 lawsuits. Some argued saying, those who have power have already been bought off or threatened, so they chose to ignore the accusation. Some Hong Kong public opinions even believe the lawsuit defeat has reflected the Chinese government has already infiltrated into every corner in the U.S. But Republican Senator Rubio, who sponsored the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act,” also voted against the overthrowing of the election result. Surely he would not also have been bought off by the Chinese government?

Since the actions of the mobs cannot be regarded as defending democracy, they were damaging the effective running of the U.S. democratic system. The reason Trump’s social media account has been shut down was that, on the day of the assembly, Trump, through social media, called for people to protest and said it “will be wild.” Trump also spoke at the assembly and encouraged the crowd to be more aggressive. He also told them to go to Capitol Hill. Therefore the U.S. public opinion generally believes Trump’s speech is related to the coup. The real debate is whether the reaction from the tech giants is appropriate.

The tech giants said Trump’s accounts have to be shut down because he incited violence. Human lives are valuable. If an account that incites violence has to be shut down, or software that does not regulate hate speech has to be taken off the shelf, how come WeChat can still be downloaded on different platforms? I understand the tech giants are U.S. enterprises and naturally care about the U.S. matters more, but the “little pink” also use WeChat to organize attacks on the Hong Kong protesters in the U.S.” The tech giants can probably not escape from the accusation of being double-standard.

The public has long been questioning the supreme power tech giants have. But how can that be resolved? Strictly speaking, the tech giants are private companies and have the freedom to set their own rules. When you join their social media platform, you promise to abide by their user agreement. They can kick you out, regardless of who you are, if they think you break the rules. Everyone is born equal. This is essentially the opposite of censorship in mainland China because the Chinese tech giants will never dare to delete the chairman’s account.

But if we only explain it as capital freedom will bring out another question: considering these tech giants are in a monopoly position, “private enterprise setting its regulations” might not be an adequate explanation. Let’s look at the other industries. From electricity to gas, to the bus company, when a private enterprise has developed into a monopoly, it is reasonable for the public to expect it to fulfill social responsibility. But what does society expect, and how can this expectation to be realized?

Shall we not regulate them at all? Let’s take an online comment from Lin Wood, Trump’s lawyer, as an example. He said, “Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST.” With his status, it is very dangerous for him to say such a thing under the current American political situation, so much so that even the right-wing social media platform has to delete the post. A lawyer in Hong Kong has also made comments like “kill, with no mercy” previously. There was also a call for an investigation, and not many people said this lawyer’s “freedom of speech” needs to be protected.

If they need to be regulated, how? The tech giants set their own regulations, and their stance has pleased no one. More problematic is that their penalties are unclear, and there is no appeal mechanism. When the accounts of famous people like Trump get banned, they can still communicate with the public through other means; if that happens to those in disadvantaged groups, they would have no way to pursue justice. Even the American Civil Liberties Union, a left-wing group and a long-term foe of Trump, said that Trump’s ban has reflected how uncontrollable the power of tech giants is.

Should we regulate the tech giants like they are public sectors like electricity companies? That could increase accountability in a democratic society, but the direct consequence would be the tech giants setting even more restrictions. Otherwise, they might receive tighter control if more incidents happen. These tech giants can even question these regulations are limiting their freedom of speech. In an undemocratic society, supporting the supervision of tech giants could easily become supporting the government to suppress dissent. People have to choose the lesser of the two devils. Under globalization, regulators and users themselves may not come from the same situation. If a giant tech company moves its office to Singapore to escape the supervision of the Hong Kong government, can local employees take the objective reality Hongkongers face into consideration when performing content management?

I am not trying to defend the tech giants by raising the above questions. I only hope everyone can understand the complexity of this issue. Netizens changing to other platforms might bring the tech giants some pressure, but the core’s structural problem would probably remain.

(Leung Kai-chi, current affairs commentator)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play