-7

Today, January 13th, Google has also decided that they don't want the appearance of Donald Trump on their social platform Youtube, for at least seven days.

I think that this move is an excess act if it is just for guaranteeing the next week transition from Youtube and especially Google.

And in addition, by exercising this act, Google risks of facing many harsh criticisms as well as questions that they have been trying to avoid for years, namely: Their political stance (by this I mean their political principles), freedom of speech, publisher or not publisher, the extent of their involvement in politics, the extent at which legal figures can involve in their decision making, etc.

Remark: As we all know, Chancellor Merkel has expressed her concerns.

Although much of risk can be faced, if Google has harboured for long their intention to draw a line between them and US legislators (as well as Congress) in the above matters, IMHO, this is the best opportunity to throw their attack.

Above this is my vague assessment of the action from Big Techs, especially after Apple and Google have done their part. But I'm not sure if my assessment is correct. So my question is:

Is it true that US Big Techs are trying to convey a message to US legislators and congress? If it is true, what is their (most pertinent) rationale as well as motives behind these actions?

Thank you, Sincerely,

2
  • Your first sentence is misleading/confusing. Trump still appears all over YouTube; suspending his account doesn't mean that they "don't want the appearance of Donald Trump on their platform". – GendoIkari Jan 13 at 14:54
  • 5
    I'm sorry, but we do not answer questions asking for hidden agendas and/or the motives for them. Answering such questions would require that we speculate about what goes on in the minds of people, which does not result in reliable answers. – Philipp Jan 13 at 15:10
8

Is it true that US Big Techs are trying to convey a message to US legislators and congress?

No, they are trying to convey a message to companies that purchase advertisements from them.

Yes, that message is also to everyone else.

If it is true, what is their (most pertinent) rationale as well as motives behind these actions?

They don't want to be party to accusations of incitements of violence, let alone actual incitement of violence.

They've publicly stated that Trump has repeatedly breached their terms of use, and only stayed on because of his position. They have judged his recent actions as detrimental enough to their image that they think it is worth enforcing their terms despite him still being POTUS.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .