Social Media: The Rise Of A Virtual Government And The Dignity Of Public Offices

By Onakpoberuo Onoriode Victor
Recent events in the USA have revealed a fundamental ethical/legal anomaly in the administration of social-media. There appears to be a government and a government; both taking decisions and exercising their powers. The fact that the online activities of a sitting president could be moderated or even outrightly shutdown leaves one in some kind of confusion about who really is the government?

If we were to be sincere and objective about this issue I think we will agree that shutting down a vital channel of communication of a sitting president clearly is a rude disregard of the president and the office of the president. It is just like the VOA refusing to air the presidents speech.

No matter the rationale or intent behind the act, one big fact stands out, which is; the subject of interest was a sitting president of the United States of America! Today this may appeal to the sentiments of some people due to their opinion about Mr Trump, but the contending issues here are as follows;

1. Do tech companies have the constitutional powers to sensor and sanction a sitting president for his comments and opinion on national issues?
2. Did the authorization to suspend the president’s Facebook/Twitter accounts come from the US Congress; if so, was there any resolution to that effect and is this not a disregard of the powers and privileges of a seating president?
3. Are there any legal implications and should there be an Act regulating the design and use of social-media apps?

In view of this challenge, I am calling on all governments worldwide to immediately begin the development of state owned social-media apps through which they can very easily communicate with their citizens devoid of the intrusion of private individuals who appear to be a government of their own. Since governments globally already own radio and television outfits, this shouldn’t be a strange idea. This will help to guide against public embarrassment and preserve the sanctity of public offices. Today reasons have been adduced for silencing a sitting president, tomorrow other reasons would be given and the disregard of the dignity of a public office will continue. This is because there is already a precedence.

ALSO READ: Sellers Of NIN Risk Arrest, Prosecution For Any Act Of Criminality Linked To Their Data – EFCC Warns

What I want you to see is the fact that social media is fast evolving into a virtual government of its own and it needs to be checked. The truth is, whoever controls social media actually controls government. Hatred for Mr Trump should not blind us from this fact.

The rule of accountability is one that is very well known and revered in the USA. Which means, whatever any person says or does while in office, he will certainty be held accountable for it if there are criminal liabilities. Therefore, shutting down a communication channel of a sitting President was a decision whose implications were not thoroughly considered. Perhaps the Trump must go campaign gave some mob legitimacy to the act. Whichever way you look at it, it was punishment or sanction. Who therefore has the right to punish a sitting President?

The entire scenario needs to be slowly reviewed legally and objectivity

The President-elect, Mr Joe Biden and other global leaders should kindly consider this position.

Thank you.

By Onakpoberuo Onoriode Victor
9th January, 2021