The Mexican president, Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, in the National Palace.MEXICO PRESIDENCY / HANDOUT / EFE
The president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has criticized the decision of the US companies Facebook and Twitter to block Donald Trump's social media accounts, after determining that with his comments he encouraged a mob to attack the headquarters of Congress on Wednesday, in Washington, while legislators certified the votes that gave Democrat Joe Biden the victory in the presidential election.
López Obrador, who cited the Mexican foreign policy of non-intervention to avoid commenting on what happened on Wednesday in the US capital, has taken advantage of his morning press conferences to describe the decision of both North American companies as censorship.
"What they did a few days ago in the United States is a bad sign, it is a bad omen, that private companies decide to silence, censor, that goes against freedom," said the president.
The first comment was made on Thursday, after being asked about his position on events in Washington.
“I always say what I think, something that I did not like yesterday [for Wednesday] about the Capitol affair, nothing more than respect, respect, but I don't like censorship, I don't like anyone being censored and remove the right to transmit a message on Twitter or Facebook, I do not agree with that, I do not accept that, "he said.
This morning he referred directly to the comments of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who in a statement justified the decision to permanently block Trump's accounts on Facebook and Instagram: “I read the letter from the owner of Facebook and I was very sorry arrogance, with a lot of arrogance, that is, speaking of their standards and what?
Freedom and the right to information?
And the role of the legally and legitimately constituted authorities?
And he added: “A corporation, the owner of Facebook or Twitter cannot be allowed to decide who to and who not to give them the possibility to communicate.
That is not [...] A world government is not going to be created with the power to control social networks, a world media power;
in addition, a court of censorship, like the Holy Inquisition, but for the management of public opinion.
It is very serious ”.
López Obrador, like Trump, is very active on social networks and has profiles on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, where he is followed by millions of users, in what for him is a direct communication tool with what he has listed as "the people", his supporters.
The president, although less inflammatory than Trump on Twitter, has harshly criticized the traditional media, mainly newspapers that maintain an editorial line critical of his management and has encouraged the use of social networks as alternative forms of information.
"This is an important issue, because here they have wanted to censor us, we have always suffered from censorship, we celebrate the new stage, that of entering the social, political, and social networks, that you can freely express yourself, express yourself", he said Thursday.
With his comments, the Mexican president enters fully into the open debate on the Internet about whether the decision to block Trump's networks is or is not an action of censorship.
"Freedom of expression has reinforced protection, but it also has limits," says Grecia Macías, a lawyer for the Network for the Defense of Digital Rights, an organization that ensures the defense and promotion of freedom in the digital environment.
“There are messages that are valid and protected and censorship is prohibited, but others that are not due to the consequences they may have.
In this case [of Trump's calls], which incites violence immediately, these messages are not protected by freedom of expression, ”explains the expert.
Macías comments that Facebook and Twitter "are within their rights" by blocking Trump's profiles after his comments that incited his followers to take over the Capitol in a violent way, although he clarifies: "This does not imply that these platforms have the right to be arbitrators of the truth.
They did this under pressure, because for them it is also a business, because not doing it would give them a bad reputation.
The big problem that these platforms have is that when it comes to moderating the content they are very arbitrary and it seems strange to me that this decision is made to censor speeches that are valid and wait too long to do it with others that exceed the limits of freedom of expression ”.
The expert agrees that these platforms should not be given the power to determine which messages can and cannot be broadcast, although she also does not believe that there should be greater regulations from the State.
"When we talk about state intervention, we must be very careful, especially in Mexico and Latin America," he warns.
It is, he says, a middle ground, in which the companies that own the social networks adjust their decisions to their protocols and with the State attentive that those norms are met.