It must be said that this hypothesis has been particularly popular in recent weeks in the United States, where Twitter, Facebook or even YouTube have increased the deletions of certain accounts and certain publications for ” incitement to hatred ” and or ” incitement to violence Against many pro-Trump or QAnon activists. Since then, many Internet users close to the American extreme right have referred to applications, media and sites ” alternative “Where they feel they can enjoy greater” freedom of expression ».
Constitutional obstacles
Like several large-scale studies leading to the same results, a recent report from the New York University School of Business indicates, however, that the virality of conservative points of view does not weaken on social networks: ” To say that there is anti-conservative censorship on social media is misinformation. No large-scale, reliable study has determined that conservative content is being eradicated for ideological reasons, or that research is being manipulated to advance liberal interests. », Reports, among others, this study.
—
Moreover, as law professor Florence G’sell recalled at the time of the definitive deletion of Donald Trump’s Twitter account, it is up to the platforms themselves, in the American context, ” to act against objectionable content on social networks » : « The first amendment of the Constitution precisely prevents too much regulation, especially on content falling within the scope of public debate. Let’s say that we can frame the most reprehensible speeches (terrorism, pedophilia, etc.) but that it is the “market of ideas” that prevails for the rest. It is therefore up to the platforms to be responsible and to intervene in the face of the most questionable statements. »
Even if this law were adopted at the state level of Texas, everything suggests that it would be revoked at the federal level. ” Tech companies are private players and are not subject to the First Amendment [qui interdit au Congrès des États-Unis d’adopter des lois limitant la liberté de religion et d’expression], judge for example Scot Powe, professor of law at the University of Texas, in the columns of the Texas Tribune. They can be as biased as they like in their decision-making processes. “Despite this legal contradiction, according to the American media CBS News, similar bills have been introduced by elected Republican officials ” in more than a dozen states ».
–
