The decision of the social network Twitter to permanently ban the use of this platform for Donald Trump has provoked a wide-ranging discussion about the limits of freedom of expression and its meaning in today's world. While some are horrified that the US president has been "muzzled", others welcome the move as "it's been a long time coming."
Any phenomenon can be assessed using a very simple method. It is necessary to find out in which direction the relevant phenomenon is directing the common situation. In this case, one side has the famous maxim: I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it, and on the other side - information sterility, when only information that is considered publicly desirable is allowed in the public space. It does not matter what determines this "desirability" - Kim Jong-un, the Pope of Rome, the UN General Assembly, or Mark Zuckerberg.
It is clear to the naked eye that blocking Trump's account does not bring us closer to the first maxim. But it does to the second though. Consequently, blocking Trump's account is undoubtedly a restriction of freedom of expression - censorship. Of course, here you can start to judge wisely, in the fashion of lawyers in court proceedings, that Twitter is a private company and can do whatever it wants, but these are just excuses so that the defenders of censors do not have to admit what they do not want to acknowledge. Namely, that "in certain circumstances" freedom of expression may just be restricted. It is clear that such giants as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram are a kind of social monopolies, similar to the Church in the early Middle Ages. Excluding you from the Church does not mean that you will be put to death or punished at all, but life can become very difficult at once.
So far, Trump has been given the chance to express himself without restriction and has been read freely by 80 million followers.
Trump's last two tweets, after which he was permanently blocked, show no sign of incitement to violence or any disorder. Just at some point Trump became toxic, unwelcome and a voluntary decision was made - to hell with him!
It is no secret that the so-called "progressive" society has developed an extremely deep hatred of Trump. They are ready to accept and support almost anything that could harm him. Therefore, it would be very convenient to consider that the reason for the "progressive" society's easy acceptance of the threat to freedom of expression is this hatred. So to speak, because of this hatred, the liberal-minded society can't see straight and therefore finds the situation acceptable. In other circumstances, the "liberal" society would stand and fall for the fundamental principles of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, such an interpretation of the situation, in my opinion, is seeing what you desire, rather than what actually is.
The problem is much deeper. Attacks on freedom of expression and ideas have expanded significantly in recent years. This restriction of freedom does not take place through any official, state structures. This happens directly through "persecution" on social networks. Through what in the West is called "woke" and "cancel culture". In Latvia, this "culture" is only in its infancy, but this does not mean that it does not have all the opportunities to flourish in all its glory.
For the time being, this censorship works most clearly on the list of "undesirable" people in the public (and not only) media. There is no official list, of course, but it is enough for certain people to appear in public somewhere for shouting to begin on that very Twitter - why was this "villain", "idiot", "enemy of society" invited. The fact that in the TV "discussion" panel the other five participants actually express the same opinion with minimal differences is perfectly normal.
Returning to wishful thinking. Not only has hatred against Trump overshadowed common sense, but it has suddenly turned out that ideological pluralism is not the most ideal environment in which to live comfortably. It turns out that it is more convenient to live in a society where everyone thinks mostly the same. The way that you do. At least 86% of the population live better in such an environment. All this diversity of thought, freedom of speech and everything that goes with it, in its deepest essence, turns out to be alien to human nature. It is a very disruptive tool for imposing the prevailing ideology. Yes, so far authoritarian, despotic regimes have usually dealt with restrictions on freedom of expression, but it turns out that "liberal" (?!) regimes can do the same. Moreover, these regimes are not formed by a dictator on behalf of the state, but by society itself.
Before our eyes, the United States is moving from a citadel of democracy and freedom of expression to a society torn apart by internal conflicts, in which there are no longer clear landmarks. One would think that this is not a bad thing anymore - society must be alive with changing goals, but in practice it is different. If the foundation starts swaying, this is the most obvious sign that the building itself is becoming unstable.
It starts with Trump, then continues with hundreds of his supporters, then it's the turn of the rival site Parler, which is restricted in every way and so on, until we realize that there is only one truth and everything that does not coincide with it is inspired by "evil forces". The craziest thing is that it turns out - people like to live in such an environment. This has been demonstrated in Europe in the 1930s, in Russia for the last twenty years, and in the United States in recent times. And it's pretty well known where this long and winding road ends.