The war of Twitter with Trump and Trump with Twitter is a big and interesting story that raises fundamental questions about the phenomenon of modern social networks, their role in global politics and, of course, the role of their owners in determining the rules of the big political game.

I think that no one will argue: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and other services are the most important tools of the domestic and foreign policies of the developed world. Especially when the fate of political regimes or the presidential election is at stake.

It seems to you and me that a pleasant service is waiting for our content, but as soon as we write a post on a sensitive topic, in the opinion of the service, they immediately click on our nose or simply block access to our audience.

It is even funnier to hear about the first amendment to the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, because the Trump vs. Twitter case alone teaches us the relativity of this concept.

Do you remember that a federal judge banned Trump from banning people on Twitter in 2018? The wording was as follows: the president has no right to violate the right of citizens to publicly discuss particular problems. The status of the President of the United States on Twitter is different from our status with you. His words can influence both stock quotes and the mood of voters. Another weight of rhetoric is other consequences for the information space.

The coronavirus epidemic confused the cards to Donald, who back in November boasted unprecedented economic growth. His rating began to fall, and the rhetoric of the US president was getting tougher. Finally, he criticized the remote voting process, which could be expanded in the light of the pandemic and adversely affect the results of the presidential election. That's where it all happened.

Trump received a shameful shortcut from Twitter under a couple of tweets: "find out the facts about remote voting." The so-called fact check implies a fight against fakes, and these notes under Donald’s political statements are associated with the fact that his words are not trustworthy. Could Trump endure this attitude? Of course no.

Another question is whether he can do something about it. Threats to sort out and regulate social networks will immediately lead to lawsuits and allegations of violation of freedom of speech.

Yes, Twitter itself does the same, but Twitter is not a presidential candidate.

Trump continues to wind up a conservative electorate, and his tape oozes an energetic hysteria. You and I are interested in observing this, but it is much more useful to draw our own conclusions. Over the past few years, Russian legislation has changed so that foreign beneficiaries cannot openly define our domestic policies. The sovereignty of the information space is no less important than the sovereignty of our democracy, which our foreign partners did not like so much.

So do not forget who regulates your access to the audience and where terabytes of your content are actually stored. Moreover, the American Constitution is concerned about freedom of speech spoken in American English, and not about freedom of speech in general. So we can count on protection and justice only in our own country.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.