Spit at the top between Donald Trump and the blue bird. As has been the case for years, the American president has turned his eyes to him because of his Twitter account. But this time, it's not so much the message that Trump had to get across as the social media fix that is shaking up the political debate in the United States.
On Tuesday, Twitter added for the first time a "check the facts" statement to two messages from the president, who said that postal voting was necessarily "fraudulent."
There is NO WAY (ZERO!) That Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone .....
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2020On Friday, the network went even further by hiding a tweet from Donald Trump for "condoning violence", while leaving it accessible. Reacting to the scenes of violence in Minneapolis after the death of George Floyd, the president declared that "at the slightest problem, when the looting begins, the shooting begins. "
.... These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020According to the social network, this choice is explained by the fact that the tweets were in violation of its policy on "civic integrity". "We think these messages could have confused voters' minds about what they should do to get a ballot and participate in the electoral process," Twitter said in one of its official accounts.
Author of tens of thousands of messages since he joined the network, Donald Trump is not, however, in his first provocations or outrages on Twitter. Why did the social network make this choice now, just over five months before the presidential election?
A “clear limit” defined by Twitter?
While social networks were the target of all critics for their role in the 2016 election, the blue bird notably sets new milestones that distinguish it from its competitors like Facebook. For his part, Mark Zuckerberg continues to stick to his line of neutrality. He further believed on Fox News that platforms should not be "the arbiter of the truth about everything people say online."
After announcing the end of all political advertising last year, “Twitter has (this time) defined the limit not to be crossed, that of the integrity of the ballot, which prevails over the right of everyone to use the network as it sees fit, ”analyzes Daniel Kreiss, professor of political communication at the University of North Carolina asked by AFP. This would explain why the network did not make the slightest correction to the conspiratorial tweets of the American president targeting MSNBC presenter Joe Scarborough.
Newsletter - The essentials of the news
Every morning, the news seen by Le ParisienI'm registering
Your email address is collected by Le Parisien to allow you to receive our news and commercial offers. Find out more
Trying to stick to a somewhat consistent line will not be easy for Twitter in the coming months. By putting the finger in this gear, the network is found at the foot of the wall and in the obligation to treat all the candidates on the same level. Trump has already accused Twitter of "interfering in the 2020 presidential election".
Trump orders replica
For the moment, the fact is that the president is receiving special treatment for his tweet on Minnapolis. "It was only him who was targeted when many people said very violent things. They obviously have a little fun with Trump, "said Jean-Eric Branaa, specialist in the United States and lecturer at Assas-Paris II University.
Donald Trump hadn't waited for this episode to counterattack anyway. After vaguely threatening to “shut down” social media, he signed a decree to attack Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This text gives Twitter, Facebook and others immunity from prosecution. linked to the published content as well as any latitude to intervene on this content as they see fit.
"This Trump decision is pretty incredible, first of all because it is useless. This will happen in court for months and in the meantime the election will be over, ”explains Jean-Eric Branaa. "Attacking section 230 unilaterally threatens the future of online freedom of expression and internet freedoms," Twitter said.
How far can this escalation go between the two camps? Twitter could hardly suspend or even delete the account of the President of the United States without attracting the wrath of its millions of supporters. As for the occupant of the Oval Office, he may well say that he could do without @realDonaldTrump "in the second", medium and message have become too inseparable to do without the first without hurting the second. When an opponent has no real interest in getting rid of the other, we can at least have a certainty: the duel will last.