Free speech or free market? The dilemma for conservatives after Trump’s Twitter Ban

For right of centre political thinkers, the debate about Donald Trump’s Twitter ban raises contradictory dilemmas that need careful thinking to be reconciled.

On the one hand, there is the free market argument that Twitter, as a private company, has every right to ban whoever it wants from its own platform.

On the other hand, there is the concern over free speech, and the power of companies to censor political voices it does not like.

Any serious thinker needs to consider both of these contradictory claims carefully. Remember the Colorado bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and the subsequent controversy that ensued? The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the bakery’s right to turn away customers based on the company’s private values. Most on the right supported this decision. I was strongly on the side of the bakery, even though I personally think discriminating against gay couples is abhorrent and bad for business. Why turn away customers willing to pay? But anyway.

So what do those same people make of Twitter’s right as a private company to shut down Trump? Surely the same argument holds, does it not? Twitter is a private company and it has the right to turn away whatever user it pleases.

But then we have the other problem. The sheer power of Twitter and its market share. If we use the private company argument and see it through to its conclusion, then by extension, Twitter has the right to ban any politician it does not like. This would be troubling for anyone, no matter your personal politics.

So how do we reconcile these contradictory forces pushing in opposite directions? The answer is nuance.

When we try to apply purist principles to anything we end up in a black and white dogfight that gets nowhere.

Looking at the specifics of Trump’s case is important. The context matters. Trump has proven his capacity to use the platform to incite unlawful action among his followers. The US President clearly used the platform to incite insurrection against the Capitol. Therefore, Trump’s case moves beyond that of a right wing politician expressing a point of view. When one openly encourages people to undermine democratic institutions and has the potential to further incite violence, then Twitter has a case for removing him.

Context matters. If you are a free speech purist then the above points won’t hold, but treating Trump’s case as unique and extraordinary is an appropriate point to arrive at.

The following is a perfectly reasonable position to arrive at even if you are a free speech advocate: ‘Given the unique circumstances surrounding the Trump ban, I support it, but I have reservations about such an action extending to other politicians in the future.’

Now to the other dilemma: the sheer power of big tech. As an advocate of open markets, it is interesting to see this play out. Many on the right, including myself, are uncomfortable with the power of corporations like Twitter and Facebook to shape our political discourse. Many on the right are comfortable with the market playing out with minimal government intervention and sorting itself out. But are we comfortable with the continued dominance of a few companies who can use their platform to censor political voices because the market allows it to do so?

There are moments in time that require you to interrogate your political outlook. This is good and healthy for any thinking person. And one can only conclude that the market power of Facebook and Twitter, left unfettered, is having negative consequences for our politics. Therefore, with quite the dash of irony, we could find right wing politicians advocating for regulations that curbs the influence of these platforms.

At the very least, there needs to be policy frameworks in place that eliminate barriers to entry to ensure that there are competitors in the market. Even though I support the Trump ban, I am troubled by Twitter working with other big tech companies to converge on Parler, its competitor, to prevent user access to the platform. Like Parler or not, people should be concerned with a big corporation engaging in collusion with other big players to squeeze out potential competitors.

This is where the left might have a point: we cannot have an unfettered market where the big players can just do what they want. There needs to be some regulations to ensure a competitive market where small and big players can access consumers.

So, the contradiction between free market advocacy and free speech advocacy arrives somewhere interesting: in the political middle, where ideological purity gives way to pragmatism and compromise. The lesson: the best politics is not about ideological dogmatism, but politics that considers cases on their merit and arrives somewhere in the centre.