Result 16 04 2022 09 12 40

Critics claim that these sites do not regularly enforce their restrictions. Both Twitter and Facebook, for example,
have permitted accounts claiming to serve the public interest—most notably those of politicians like former US
President Donald J. Trump—to publish abusive or deceptive information that would have been banned if
submitted by an average user.
Instead, in Trump’s instance, the businesses included fact checks to some of his tweets, which several social
media and disinformation specialists blasted as insufficient. Following the rioting in the US Capitol, both
platforms finally banned Trump, although both have faced criticism for not taking comparable steps in other
countries. YouTube has also been chastised for supposedly favoring its star users, who generate more cash. It
was also chastised for failing to rapidly remove videos containing false accusations of US election fraud and
other falsehoods.
According to critics, the businesses’ ad-driven business models rely on keeping users interested, so they have
little incentive to control racist or violent behavior. At the same time, legislators in other countries, like the
United States, believe that social media corporations have overstepped their bounds in terms of moderation,
putting free expression at risk.
Social media corporations, for their part, have claimed that their policies are impossible to police. It might be
difficult to tell the difference between hate speech and comedy or criticism at times. Some businesses argue that
it is not their responsibility to set the rules for the internet, and they have asked for government control.
…