While the world is debating whether social networks such as Twitter and Facebook should assume the decision to restrict the freedom of opinion to their users, as happened with former US President Donald Trump, at the other end of the world, in Uganda, It was the Government that ordered the closure of these networks prior to the elections.
Neutrality, respect for human rights and freedom of expression on social networks are once again in the midst of public debate after the violent takeover of the United States Capitol – on January 6 – by exacerbated supporters of Trump in Twitter, a platform that decided to close his account, as well as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and more recently YouTube.
There were followers who blamed Twitter for not respecting neutrality, to which its executives have responded that it was a clear breach of its policies when these “inflammatory messages” from the former president were posted. For others, the most worrying thing is that a private company has been able to silence the most powerful man – at that moment – in the world, depriving him of communicating with more than 80 million users.
And if it is defended in the United States, in Uganda this technological emporium is in a position to accuse after the Government ordered all internet providers to block access to social networks and popular messaging applications, including Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp 48 hours before the elections that were held on January 14, because the conversation on these networks favored the opposition candidate, Bobi Wine.
Twitter’s complaint was immediate: “We strongly condemn Internet closures… (because) they are enormously harmful, they violate basic human rights and the principles of an open Internet”, a response that for many is paradoxical when compared to recent events in Washington when it was the company that decided to block accounts.
How to elucidate this conflict over who decides how far the freedom of opinion goes on these platforms? The truth is that this freedom is subject to limits, even in the most advanced democratic societies, and the lack of legislation on the regulations applied to social networks is evident, an oligopoly that decides on its millions of users.
– .
