It is in the nature of the president of the United States to be controversial. Today, social media is just as controversial. It makes sense, then, that the use of social media by President Donald Trump would be very controversial. Trump is not the first world leader to make use of social media, but he has attracted a great deal of attention and criticism for his use of it.

During the 2016 presidential race and continuing into his presidency, Trump has sent out thousands of tweets, or 280-character blurbs, on Twitter. Trump may not be the first world leader to use Twitter, but he does use it far more than most, making use of it on a regular basis.

Trump’s tweeting has attracted controversy for two major reasons. The first is the content of the tweets. Many people have found some of the president’s tweets to be offensive, hateful, factually inaccurate or simply immature.

The other is the controversy regarding Trump’s use of social media. Many think that elected officials, especially world leaders like the president of the U.S., should simply not use social media. The use of social media is dangerous, with the president having been called risky for security and diplomatic reasons, as well as sowing discord among the people. Furthermore, time spent by the president on Twitter is time that could be used elsewhere.

On Jan. 5, Twitter issued a response to the controversy surrounding Trump’s Twitter account. Twitter has stated that they would not be censoring Trump’s Twitter, as doing so would damage public discourse. People have a right to see and discuss what world leaders tweet.  Twitter claims that they are enforcing their rules just as they would with anyone else and are in favor of free, open dialogue.

Some say this contradicts Twitter’s censorship of other people. Some individuals, such as white supremacists, have been censored in the past. Others, such as an individual supporting Catalonia’s independence movement, were censored for their opinions. It is certainly true that censorship of a world leader raises unique issues. It is ironic that the president will not be censored.

All of this raises questions about how social media has affected public discourse. Some feel that conversation over social media is less civil and more argumentative. However, the internet has also enabled a greater amount of conversation and sharing of thoughts between individuals than ever before. Some say that the lack of face-to-face conversation on websites cause people to be more upfront with what they have to say, but it does become easier for people to lie.

On the one hand, it is true that censorship would be incredibly damaging to public discourse. While this is a particularly large-scale problem in the case of a world leader, the same principal applies to any individual being censored.

It is impossible to raise the standard of public dialogue by decreasing the amount of public dialogue. People cannot discuss and share ideas and opinions if you tell those you disagree with to shut up, and you cannot change someone’s mind by silencing them. The only way to raise the standard of public dialogue is by having more public dialogue. When faced with opinions that one disagrees with, or even hateful, reprehensible speech, the only way to respond is with further conversation.

The platform not only encourages, but limits people to unnecessary hostility and conflict, while stifling well-formed, reasonable arguments. While nobody, world leader or not, should be censored, it is clear that because of the 280-character limit, Twitter is not yet a platform suited for public discourse. 

Photo provided by Maryland GovPics via flickr