Result 16 04 2022 09 14 44

These platforms, according to their detractors, do not consistently enforce their policies. Twitter and Facebook,
for example, have permitted accounts that purport to serve the public good to publish offensive or deceptive
information that would have been removed if shared by an ordinary user. This contains accounts owned by
politicians such as former US President Donald J. Trump.
Some researchers who monitor social media and misinformation have raised worry that the corporations’ fact
checks were insufficient in Trump’s case. Following the unrest in the United States Capitol, both platforms
eventually banned Trump, although both have been chastised for failing to take identical action in other nations.
YouTube has also come under fire for allegedly treating its celebrity users more leniently than the ordinary
audience. It has also been chastised for failing to delete videos carrying false charges of election fraud in the
United States and other disinformation as quickly as it should have.
Critics argue that because of their ad-driven economic systems, companies are not incentivized to control
bigoted or violent behavior. While alleging that social media companies have gone too far in their moderation
efforts, politicians in certain countries, such as the United States, argue that this has come at the expense of free
expression.
Because of the nature of the platforms on which they operate, social media corporations claim that their laws are
difficult to apply. It can be difficult to distinguish hate speech from other types of communication such as humor
or criticism. Some corporations claim that it is not their job to develop internet standards and have advocated for
government regulation to be introduced.
…