🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 79 (from laksa005)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa079.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://fortune.com/2021/01/28/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech/\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://fortune.com/2021/01/28/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech/\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/fortune.com\/2021\/01\/28\/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech\/","crawl_time":1776313219,"first_indexed_time":1611837428,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"com,fortune!\/2021\/01\/28\/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech\/ s443","src_root_hash":"13809836321913650279","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"Trump's Twitter ban is concerning for online free speech | Fortune","meta_descriptions":["Commentary: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said banning Trump sets a \"dangerous\" precedent for free speech expression online."],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"The dramatic events of Jan. 6, 2021, represent not only a severe crisis for American democracy—the first takeover of the U.S. Capitol building since 1812—but also a possible tipping point in the power relationship between the U.S. government and the major online platforms. \nUp until recently, the U.S. government was considering whether to subject the platforms to stricter regulation—for example, by removing their immunity from claims pursuant to\nSection 230 of the Communications Decency Act\n—because of a widespread perception of failure to moderate harmful online content. \nHowever, the decision by the largest online platforms to deplatform President Trump in the aftermath of the failed insurrection attempt marks an odd reversal of roles: The platforms have taken drastic steps to protect the democratic institutions of the U.S. government\nin lieu of\nthe government itself, which failed to adequately protect the Capitol.  \nAlmost in parallel to the deplatforming of the President by Facebook and\nTwitter\n, tech giants\nApple\n,\nGoogle\n, and\nAmazon\nwithdrew the right-wing social network Parler from their app stores or web-hosting services. \nThese developments stand in marked contrast to the traditional hands-off policies long held by online platforms, which for many years resisted calls for moderating false content, citing concerns about becoming arbiters of the truth. They displayed particular deference toward interfering with online content posted by world leaders—alluding to the public interest in obtaining the information they posted. \nThe quick shift from refusing to serve as speech police to permanently blocking the President in response to the unprecedented postelection events raises, nonetheless, questions about the compatibility of the platforms’ new policies and practices with core freedom of expression principles, and the adequacy of the regulatory framework governing online platforms. \nThe need to address such questions was implicitly acknowledged by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who alluded to\nthe measures taken by Twitter\nvis-à-vis the President’s account as a “dangerous” precedent.  \nAs private entities, online platforms are not subject to constitutional limits on speech regulation under the First Amendment, but rather operate under a contractual framework established by terms-of-service agreements and community standards or rules. \nStill, given the significant market share held by a few online platforms and the dominance of online speech in the marketplace of ideas and in political discourse, they have become critical gatekeepers in the world of information.\nAnd while most still think of freedom of expression as a right exercised by individuals vis-à-vis governments, in the digital space the platforms operate as de facto\ngovernments, exercising lawmaking, law interpretation, and law enforcement functions, including—apparently—the power to permanently banish individuals, groups, and businesses, an outcome that might be regarded as the virtual equivalent of exile for life.\nLack of certainty around platforms’ policies and the processes of their interpretation and application also raises significant concerns about potential abuse of power, and about generating a chilling effect on political speech.\nNow that online platforms are evolving from republishers of third-party information—who may choose to exercise some editorial control over such content (protected by Section 230’s “good Samaritan” clause, authorizing the removal in good faith of objectionable content)—to gatekeepers of democracy and defenders of the public interest, legal and political checks over their newly exercised power need to be reevaluated.\nThree sets of questions should compose part of a review of platforms’ free speech policies, which can be undertaken by relevant stakeholders, including democratic government institutions, international bodies, academia, the media, and public interest groups:\nAre community standards on political speech sufficiently detailed and precise in explaining what constitutes prohibited speech and what the consequences are for violating the said standards? In order to retain broad legitimacy, such standards ought to be compatible with recognized standards, such as those found in rule-of-law democracies or international human rights law.\nIs decision-making regarding content moderation in political speech cases sufficiently transparent in terms of the process undertaken and the reasons given for specific speech-limiting decisions?\nDo individuals and groups affected by content moderation decisions have an effective avenue of recourse to challenge such decisions?\nEnsuring that online platforms integrate good governance, human rights, and rule-of-law safeguards in their community standards and actual operations may help mitigate the “dangerous” precedent of deplatforming President Trump.    \nYuval Shany directs the Federmann Cyber Security Research Center of the Cyber Law Program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute and former chair of the UN Human Rights Committee.","attrs_markdown":"Search\n\n[Subscribe for \\$1Subscribe for \\$1](https:\/\/fortune.com\/subscribe\/?itm_source=Site_0_HCL_NAV_CTA_0_2025_ZZ&redirect=%2F2021%2F01%2F28%2Ftrump-banned-twitter-free-speech%2F)\n\n[Sign in](https:\/\/fortune.com\/signin\/?signin_redirect=%2F2021%2F01%2F28%2Ftrump-banned-twitter-free-speech%2F)\n\n- [Home](https:\/\/fortune.com\/)\n- [Latest](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/latest\/)\n- [Fortune 500](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/fortune-500\/)\n- [Finance](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/finance\/)\n- [Tech](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/tech\/)\n- [Leadership](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/leadership\/)\n- [Lifestyle](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/lifestyle\/)\n- [Rankings](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/)\n- [Multimedia](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2021\/01\/28\/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech\/)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[free speech](https:\/\/fortune.com\/tag\/free-speech\/)\n# Online platforms are making up free speech rules as they go—and it’s concerning\n\nBy\n\n[Yuval Shany](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/yuval-shany\/)\n\nYuval Shany\n\nBy\n\n[Yuval Shany](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/yuval-shany\/)\n\nYuval Shany\n\nJanuary 28, 2021, 5:30 AM ET\n\nAdd us on\n\n![Commentary-Social Platforms-Free Speech Rules](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)\n\nBanning Trump from Twitter raises concerns about free speech protections online, writes Yuval Shany.Klaus Vedfelt—Getty Images\n\nThe dramatic events of Jan. 6, 2021, represent not only a severe crisis for American democracy—the first takeover of the U.S. Capitol building since 1812—but also a possible tipping point in the power relationship between the U.S. government and the major online platforms.\n\nUp until recently, the U.S. government was considering whether to subject the platforms to stricter regulation—for example, by removing their immunity from claims pursuant to [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act](https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/47\/230)—because of a widespread perception of failure to moderate harmful online content.\n\nHowever, the decision by the largest online platforms to deplatform President Trump in the aftermath of the failed insurrection attempt marks an odd reversal of roles: The platforms have taken drastic steps to protect the democratic institutions of the U.S. government *in lieu of* the government itself, which failed to adequately protect the Capitol.\n\nAlmost in parallel to the deplatforming of the President by Facebook and [Twitter](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/twitter\/), tech giants [Apple](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/apple\/), [Google](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/alphabet\/), and [Amazon](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/amazon-com\/) withdrew the right-wing social network Parler from their app stores or web-hosting services.\n\nThese developments stand in marked contrast to the traditional hands-off policies long held by online platforms, which for many years resisted calls for moderating false content, citing concerns about becoming arbiters of the truth. They displayed particular deference toward interfering with online content posted by world leaders—alluding to the public interest in obtaining the information they posted.\n\nThe quick shift from refusing to serve as speech police to permanently blocking the President in response to the unprecedented postelection events raises, nonetheless, questions about the compatibility of the platforms’ new policies and practices with core freedom of expression principles, and the adequacy of the regulatory framework governing online platforms.\n\nThe need to address such questions was implicitly acknowledged by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who alluded to [the measures taken by Twitter](https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/jack-dorsey-banning-trump-from-twitter-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-2021-1) vis-à-vis the President’s account as a “dangerous” precedent.\n\nAs private entities, online platforms are not subject to constitutional limits on speech regulation under the First Amendment, but rather operate under a contractual framework established by terms-of-service agreements and community standards or rules.\n\nStill, given the significant market share held by a few online platforms and the dominance of online speech in the marketplace of ideas and in political discourse, they have become critical gatekeepers in the world of information.\n\nAnd while most still think of freedom of expression as a right exercised by individuals vis-à-vis governments, in the digital space the platforms operate as de factogovernments, exercising lawmaking, law interpretation, and law enforcement functions, including—apparently—the power to permanently banish individuals, groups, and businesses, an outcome that might be regarded as the virtual equivalent of exile for life.\n\nLack of certainty around platforms’ policies and the processes of their interpretation and application also raises significant concerns about potential abuse of power, and about generating a chilling effect on political speech.\n\nNow that online platforms are evolving from republishers of third-party information—who may choose to exercise some editorial control over such content (protected by Section 230’s “good Samaritan” clause, authorizing the removal in good faith of objectionable content)—to gatekeepers of democracy and defenders of the public interest, legal and political checks over their newly exercised power need to be reevaluated.\n\nThree sets of questions should compose part of a review of platforms’ free speech policies, which can be undertaken by relevant stakeholders, including democratic government institutions, international bodies, academia, the media, and public interest groups:\n\n1. Are community standards on political speech sufficiently detailed and precise in explaining what constitutes prohibited speech and what the consequences are for violating the said standards? In order to retain broad legitimacy, such standards ought to be compatible with recognized standards, such as those found in rule-of-law democracies or international human rights law.\n2. Is decision-making regarding content moderation in political speech cases sufficiently transparent in terms of the process undertaken and the reasons given for specific speech-limiting decisions?\n3. Do individuals and groups affected by content moderation decisions have an effective avenue of recourse to challenge such decisions?\n\nEnsuring that online platforms integrate good governance, human rights, and rule-of-law safeguards in their community standards and actual operations may help mitigate the “dangerous” precedent of deplatforming President Trump.\n\n*Yuval Shany directs the Federmann Cyber Security Research Center of the Cyber Law Program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute and former chair of the UN Human Rights Committee.*\n\nAbout the Author\n\nBy [Yuval Shany](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/yuval-shany\/)\n\n[See full bio](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/yuval-shany\/)\n\n***\nLatest in Commentary\n***\n***\n\n[![raikes](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/ai-literacy-talent-pipeline-entry-level-jobs-jeff-raikes-microsoft-gates-foundation\/)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[Microsoft](https:\/\/fortune.com\/tag\/microsoft\/)\n\n[Jeff Raikes: AI is capturing cognition — and most companies are building a talent debt they don’t see yet](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/ai-literacy-talent-pipeline-entry-level-jobs-jeff-raikes-microsoft-gates-foundation\/)\n\nBy [Jeff Raikes](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/jeff-raikes\/)April 15, 2026\n\n15 hours ago\n\n[![clinton](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/leadership-careers-1990s-economy-ai-jobs-crisis-workforce-lessons\/)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[disruption](https:\/\/fortune.com\/tag\/disruption\/)\n\n[I was a government official in the 1990s and watched the economy get turned upside-down. It’s happening again](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/leadership-careers-1990s-economy-ai-jobs-crisis-workforce-lessons\/)\n\nBy [Maria Flynn](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/maria-flynn\/)April 15, 2026\n\n16 hours ago\n\n[![dees](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/pentagon-anthropic-ai-arms-race-open-source-national-security\/)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[National Security](https:\/\/fortune.com\/tag\/national-security\/)\n\n[A retired general’s warning: America can’t fight the AI arms race on tech it doesn’t control](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/pentagon-anthropic-ai-arms-race-open-source-national-security\/)\n\nBy [Robert F. Dees](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/robert-f-dees\/)April 15, 2026\n\n16 hours ago\n\n[![fudd](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/azzi-fudd-wnba-uconn-nil-deals-partnerships\/)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[Sports](https:\/\/fortune.com\/tag\/sports\/)\n\n[Azzi Fudd: how I learned to use NIL for transformation, not just transactions](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/15\/azzi-fudd-wnba-uconn-nil-deals-partnerships\/)\n\nBy [Azzi Fudd](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/azzi-fudd\/)April 15, 2026\n\n17 hours ago\n\n[![crowell](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson\/)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[Retirement](https:\/\/fortune.com\/tag\/retirement\/)\n\n[Retirees are facing a \\$345,000 bill they never saw coming — and most aren’t prepared](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson\/)\n\nBy [Andrew Crowell](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/andrew-crowell\/)April 14, 2026\n\n2 days ago\n\n[![AI agents are acting like employees, but company structures still treat them like software](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/13\/ai-agents-governance-identity-risk-okta\/)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[Okta](https:\/\/fortune.com\/tag\/okta\/)\n\n[AI agents are acting like employees, but company structures still treat them like software](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/13\/ai-agents-governance-identity-risk-okta\/)\n\nBy [Dan Mountstephen](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/dan-mountstephen\/)April 13, 2026\n\n2 days ago\n\n***\nMost Popular\n***\n***\n\n[![Billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott has donated again—a week after gifting millions to a college, she's just given \\$70 million to Meals on Wheels America](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/13\/billionaire-philanthropist-mackenzie-scott-donates-70-million-meals-on-wheels-america-feed-2-million-people\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\n[Success](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/success\/)\n\n[Billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott has donated again—a week after gifting millions to a college, she's just given \\$70 million to Meals on Wheels America](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/13\/billionaire-philanthropist-mackenzie-scott-donates-70-million-meals-on-wheels-america-feed-2-million-people\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\nBy [Fortune Editors](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/fortune-editors\/)April 13, 2026\n\n3 days ago\n\n[![Retirees are facing a \\$345,000 bill they never saw coming — and most aren't prepared](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\n[Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n\n[Retirees are facing a \\$345,000 bill they never saw coming — and most aren't prepared](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\nBy [Fortune Editors](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/fortune-editors\/)April 14, 2026\n\n2 days ago\n\n[![Palantir CEO says working at his \\$316 billion software company is better than a degree from Harvard or Yale: ‘No one cares about the other stuff’](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/article\/billionaire-palantir-ceo-alex-karp-working-at-his-tech-firm-better-than-harvard-yale-princeton-degree-does-not-matter-gen-z\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\n[Success](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/success\/)\n\n[Palantir CEO says working at his \\$316 billion software company is better than a degree from Harvard or Yale: ‘No one cares about the other stuff’](https:\/\/fortune.com\/article\/billionaire-palantir-ceo-alex-karp-working-at-his-tech-firm-better-than-harvard-yale-princeton-degree-does-not-matter-gen-z\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\nBy [Fortune Editors](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/fortune-editors\/)April 14, 2026\n\n2 days ago\n\n[![Warren Buffett’s first tax return showed \\$7 owed to the IRS. The then paperboy and former Berkshire Hathaway CEO is now worth \\$143 billion](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/warren-buffett-first-tax-return-age-14-owed-7-dollars-irs-berkshire-hathaway-ceo-net-worth\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\n[Success](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/success\/)\n\n[Warren Buffett’s first tax return showed \\$7 owed to the IRS. The then paperboy and former Berkshire Hathaway CEO is now worth \\$143 billion](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/warren-buffett-first-tax-return-age-14-owed-7-dollars-irs-berkshire-hathaway-ceo-net-worth\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\nBy [Fortune Editors](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/fortune-editors\/)April 14, 2026\n\n2 days ago\n\n[![Anthropic is facing a wave of user backlash over reports of performance issues with its Claude AI chatbot](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/anthropic-claude-performance-decline-user-complaints-backlash-lack-of-transparency-accusations-compute-crunch\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\n[AI](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/artificial-intelligence\/)\n\n[Anthropic is facing a wave of user backlash over reports of performance issues with its Claude AI chatbot](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/anthropic-claude-performance-decline-user-complaints-backlash-lack-of-transparency-accusations-compute-crunch\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\nBy [Fortune Editors](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/fortune-editors\/)April 14, 2026\n\n2 days ago\n\n[![He was coding at 12 like Elon Musk and became one of Google’s youngest-ever CMOs—but now says Gen Z is better off ice skating than learning to code](https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-bill-gates-coding-obsolete-says-ex-google-cmo-gen-z-career-advice\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\n[Success](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/success\/)\n\n[He was coding at 12 like Elon Musk and became one of Google’s youngest-ever CMOs—but now says Gen Z is better off ice skating than learning to code](https:\/\/fortune.com\/2026\/04\/14\/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-bill-gates-coding-obsolete-says-ex-google-cmo-gen-z-career-advice\/?itm_source=parsely-api)\n\nBy [Fortune Editors](https:\/\/fortune.com\/author\/fortune-editors\/)April 14, 2026\n\n2 days ago\n\nRankings\n\n- [100 Best Companies](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/best-companies\/)\n- [Fortune 500](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/fortune500\/)\n- [Global 500](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/global500\/)\n- [Fortune 500 Europe](https:\/\/fortune.com\/europe\/ranking\/fortune500-europe\/)\n- [Most Powerful Women](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/most-powerful-women\/)\n- [Future 50](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/future-50\/)\n- [World’s Most Admired Companies](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/worlds-most-admired-companies\/)\n- [See All Rankings](https:\/\/fortune.com\/ranking\/)\n\nSections\n\n- [Finance](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/finance\/)\n- [Fortune Crypto](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/crypto\/)\n- [Features](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/features\/)\n- [Leadership](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/leadership\/)\n- [Health](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/health\/)\n- [Commentary](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/commentary\/)\n- [Success](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/success\/)\n- [Retail](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/retail\/)\n- [Mpw](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/mpw\/)\n- [Tech](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/tech\/)\n- [Lifestyle](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/lifestyle\/)\n- [CEO Initiative](https:\/\/conferences.fortune.com\/event\/the-fortune-ceo-initiative-2026\/home)\n- [Asia](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/asia\/)\n- [Politics](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/politics\/)\n- [Conferences](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/conferences\/)\n- [Europe](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/europe\/)\n- [Newsletters](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/newsletters\/)\n- [Personal Finance](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/personal-finance\/)\n- [Environment](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/environment\/)\n- [Magazine](https:\/\/fortune.com\/section\/magazine\/)\n- [Education](https:\/\/fortune.com\/education\/)\n\nCustomer Support\n\n- [Frequently Asked Questions](https:\/\/fortunecustomerservice.zendesk.com\/hc\/en-us)\n- [Customer Service Portal](https:\/\/fortunecustomerservice.zendesk.com\/hc\/en-us)\n- [Privacy Policy](https:\/\/fortune.com\/privacy-policy\/)\n- [Terms Of Use](https:\/\/fortune.com\/terms-of-use\/)\n- [Single Issues For Purchase](https:\/\/order.emags.com\/fortune_single_issues)\n- [International Print](https:\/\/fortune.com\/international-print-magazine-only-subscribers\/)\n\nCommercial Services\n\n- [Advertising](https:\/\/fortune.com\/advertising\/)\n- [Fortune Brand Studio](https:\/\/fortune.com\/brandstudio\/fbs\/portfolio\/)\n- [Fortune Analytics](https:\/\/fortune.com\/analytics)\n- [Fortune Conferences](https:\/\/fortune.com\/conferences)\n- [Business Development](https:\/\/fortune.com\/business-development\/)\n- [Group Subscriptions](https:\/\/fortune.com\/group-subscriptions\/)\n\nAbout Us\n\n- [About Us](https:\/\/fortune.com\/about-us\/)\n- [Editorial Calendar](https:\/\/fortune.com\/editorial-calendar\/)\n- [Press Center](https:\/\/fortune.com\/press-center\/)\n- [Work At Fortune](https:\/\/fortune.wd108.myworkdayjobs.com\/en-US\/Fortune)\n- [Diversity And Inclusion](https:\/\/fortune.com\/workplace\/diversity-inclusion)\n- [Terms And Conditions](https:\/\/fortune.com\/terms-of-use\/)\n- [Site Map](https:\/\/fortune.com\/sitemap\/)\n\nRankings\n\nSections\n\nCustomer Support\n\nCommercial Services\n\n- [About Us](https:\/\/fortune.com\/about-us\/)\n- [Editorial Calendar](https:\/\/fortune.com\/editorial-calendar\/)\n- [Press Center](https:\/\/fortune.com\/press-center\/)\n- [Work At Fortune](https:\/\/fortune.wd108.myworkdayjobs.com\/en-US\/Fortune)\n- [Diversity And Inclusion](https:\/\/fortune.com\/workplace\/diversity-inclusion)\n- [Terms And Conditions](https:\/\/fortune.com\/terms-of-use\/)\n- [Site Map](https:\/\/fortune.com\/sitemap\/)\n\n© 2026 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our [Terms of Use](https:\/\/fortune.com\/terms-of-use\/) and [Privacy Policy](https:\/\/fortune.com\/privacy-policy\/) \\| [CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice](https:\/\/fortune.com\/california-privacy-policy\/#notice) \\| [Do Not Sell\/Share My Personal Information]()  \n FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.\n\n[search by queryly](https:\/\/www.queryly.com\/)\n\n[Advanced Search]()\n\n![close](https:\/\/www.queryly.com\/images\/whitecloseicon.png)","attrs_readable_markdown":"The dramatic events of Jan. 6, 2021, represent not only a severe crisis for American democracy—the first takeover of the U.S. Capitol building since 1812—but also a possible tipping point in the power relationship between the U.S. government and the major online platforms.\n\nUp until recently, the U.S. government was considering whether to subject the platforms to stricter regulation—for example, by removing their immunity from claims pursuant to [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act](https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/47\/230)—because of a widespread perception of failure to moderate harmful online content.\n\nHowever, the decision by the largest online platforms to deplatform President Trump in the aftermath of the failed insurrection attempt marks an odd reversal of roles: The platforms have taken drastic steps to protect the democratic institutions of the U.S. government *in lieu of* the government itself, which failed to adequately protect the Capitol.\n\nAlmost in parallel to the deplatforming of the President by Facebook and [Twitter](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/twitter\/), tech giants [Apple](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/apple\/), [Google](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/alphabet\/), and [Amazon](https:\/\/fortune.com\/company\/amazon-com\/) withdrew the right-wing social network Parler from their app stores or web-hosting services.\n\nThese developments stand in marked contrast to the traditional hands-off policies long held by online platforms, which for many years resisted calls for moderating false content, citing concerns about becoming arbiters of the truth. They displayed particular deference toward interfering with online content posted by world leaders—alluding to the public interest in obtaining the information they posted.\n\nThe quick shift from refusing to serve as speech police to permanently blocking the President in response to the unprecedented postelection events raises, nonetheless, questions about the compatibility of the platforms’ new policies and practices with core freedom of expression principles, and the adequacy of the regulatory framework governing online platforms.\n\nThe need to address such questions was implicitly acknowledged by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who alluded to [the measures taken by Twitter](https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/jack-dorsey-banning-trump-from-twitter-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-2021-1) vis-à-vis the President’s account as a “dangerous” precedent.\n\nAs private entities, online platforms are not subject to constitutional limits on speech regulation under the First Amendment, but rather operate under a contractual framework established by terms-of-service agreements and community standards or rules.\n\nStill, given the significant market share held by a few online platforms and the dominance of online speech in the marketplace of ideas and in political discourse, they have become critical gatekeepers in the world of information.\n\nAnd while most still think of freedom of expression as a right exercised by individuals vis-à-vis governments, in the digital space the platforms operate as de factogovernments, exercising lawmaking, law interpretation, and law enforcement functions, including—apparently—the power to permanently banish individuals, groups, and businesses, an outcome that might be regarded as the virtual equivalent of exile for life.\n\nLack of certainty around platforms’ policies and the processes of their interpretation and application also raises significant concerns about potential abuse of power, and about generating a chilling effect on political speech.\n\nNow that online platforms are evolving from republishers of third-party information—who may choose to exercise some editorial control over such content (protected by Section 230’s “good Samaritan” clause, authorizing the removal in good faith of objectionable content)—to gatekeepers of democracy and defenders of the public interest, legal and political checks over their newly exercised power need to be reevaluated.\n\nThree sets of questions should compose part of a review of platforms’ free speech policies, which can be undertaken by relevant stakeholders, including democratic government institutions, international bodies, academia, the media, and public interest groups:\n\n1. Are community standards on political speech sufficiently detailed and precise in explaining what constitutes prohibited speech and what the consequences are for violating the said standards? In order to retain broad legitimacy, such standards ought to be compatible with recognized standards, such as those found in rule-of-law democracies or international human rights law.\n2. Is decision-making regarding content moderation in political speech cases sufficiently transparent in terms of the process undertaken and the reasons given for specific speech-limiting decisions?\n3. Do individuals and groups affected by content moderation decisions have an effective avenue of recourse to challenge such decisions?\n\nEnsuring that online platforms integrate good governance, human rights, and rule-of-law safeguards in their community standards and actual operations may help mitigate the “dangerous” precedent of deplatforming President Trump.\n\n*Yuval Shany directs the Federmann Cyber Security Research Center of the Cyber Law Program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute and former chair of the UN Human Rights Committee.*","meta_canonical":null}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

2 hours ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	0 months ago
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property	Value
URL	https://fortune.com/2021/01/28/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech/
Last Crawled	2026-04-16 04:20:19 (2 hours ago)
First Indexed	2021-01-28 12:37:08 (5 years ago)
HTTP Status Code	200
Meta Title	Trump's Twitter ban is concerning for online free speech \| Fortune
Meta Description	Commentary: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said banning Trump sets a "dangerous" precedent for free speech expression online.
Meta Canonical	null
Boilerpipe Text	The dramatic events of Jan. 6, 2021, represent not only a severe crisis for American democracy—the first takeover of the U.S. Capitol building since 1812—but also a possible tipping point in the power relationship between the U.S. government and the major online platforms. Up until recently, the U.S. government was considering whether to subject the platforms to stricter regulation—for example, by removing their immunity from claims pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act —because of a widespread perception of failure to moderate harmful online content. However, the decision by the largest online platforms to deplatform President Trump in the aftermath of the failed insurrection attempt marks an odd reversal of roles: The platforms have taken drastic steps to protect the democratic institutions of the U.S. government in lieu of the government itself, which failed to adequately protect the Capitol. Almost in parallel to the deplatforming of the President by Facebook and Twitter , tech giants Apple , Google , and Amazon withdrew the right-wing social network Parler from their app stores or web-hosting services. These developments stand in marked contrast to the traditional hands-off policies long held by online platforms, which for many years resisted calls for moderating false content, citing concerns about becoming arbiters of the truth. They displayed particular deference toward interfering with online content posted by world leaders—alluding to the public interest in obtaining the information they posted. The quick shift from refusing to serve as speech police to permanently blocking the President in response to the unprecedented postelection events raises, nonetheless, questions about the compatibility of the platforms’ new policies and practices with core freedom of expression principles, and the adequacy of the regulatory framework governing online platforms. The need to address such questions was implicitly acknowledged by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who alluded to the measures taken by Twitter vis-à-vis the President’s account as a “dangerous” precedent. As private entities, online platforms are not subject to constitutional limits on speech regulation under the First Amendment, but rather operate under a contractual framework established by terms-of-service agreements and community standards or rules. Still, given the significant market share held by a few online platforms and the dominance of online speech in the marketplace of ideas and in political discourse, they have become critical gatekeepers in the world of information. And while most still think of freedom of expression as a right exercised by individuals vis-à-vis governments, in the digital space the platforms operate as de facto governments, exercising lawmaking, law interpretation, and law enforcement functions, including—apparently—the power to permanently banish individuals, groups, and businesses, an outcome that might be regarded as the virtual equivalent of exile for life. Lack of certainty around platforms’ policies and the processes of their interpretation and application also raises significant concerns about potential abuse of power, and about generating a chilling effect on political speech. Now that online platforms are evolving from republishers of third-party information—who may choose to exercise some editorial control over such content (protected by Section 230’s “good Samaritan” clause, authorizing the removal in good faith of objectionable content)—to gatekeepers of democracy and defenders of the public interest, legal and political checks over their newly exercised power need to be reevaluated. Three sets of questions should compose part of a review of platforms’ free speech policies, which can be undertaken by relevant stakeholders, including democratic government institutions, international bodies, academia, the media, and public interest groups: Are community standards on political speech sufficiently detailed and precise in explaining what constitutes prohibited speech and what the consequences are for violating the said standards? In order to retain broad legitimacy, such standards ought to be compatible with recognized standards, such as those found in rule-of-law democracies or international human rights law. Is decision-making regarding content moderation in political speech cases sufficiently transparent in terms of the process undertaken and the reasons given for specific speech-limiting decisions? Do individuals and groups affected by content moderation decisions have an effective avenue of recourse to challenge such decisions? Ensuring that online platforms integrate good governance, human rights, and rule-of-law safeguards in their community standards and actual operations may help mitigate the “dangerous” precedent of deplatforming President Trump. Yuval Shany directs the Federmann Cyber Security Research Center of the Cyber Law Program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute and former chair of the UN Human Rights Committee.
Markdown	Search [Subscribe for \$1Subscribe for \$1](https://fortune.com/subscribe/?itm_source=Site_0_HCL_NAV_CTA_0_2025_ZZ&redirect=%2F2021%2F01%2F28%2Ftrump-banned-twitter-free-speech%2F) [Sign in](https://fortune.com/signin/?signin_redirect=%2F2021%2F01%2F28%2Ftrump-banned-twitter-free-speech%2F) - [Home](https://fortune.com/) - [Latest](https://fortune.com/section/latest/) - [Fortune 500](https://fortune.com/section/fortune-500/) - [Finance](https://fortune.com/section/finance/) - [Tech](https://fortune.com/section/tech/) - [Leadership](https://fortune.com/section/leadership/) - [Lifestyle](https://fortune.com/section/lifestyle/) - [Rankings](https://fortune.com/ranking/) - [Multimedia](https://fortune.com/2021/01/28/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech/) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [free speech](https://fortune.com/tag/free-speech/) # Online platforms are making up free speech rules as they go—and it’s concerning By [Yuval Shany](https://fortune.com/author/yuval-shany/) Yuval Shany By [Yuval Shany](https://fortune.com/author/yuval-shany/) Yuval Shany January 28, 2021, 5:30 AM ET Add us on ![Commentary-Social Platforms-Free Speech Rules](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg) Banning Trump from Twitter raises concerns about free speech protections online, writes Yuval Shany.Klaus Vedfelt—Getty Images The dramatic events of Jan. 6, 2021, represent not only a severe crisis for American democracy—the first takeover of the U.S. Capitol building since 1812—but also a possible tipping point in the power relationship between the U.S. government and the major online platforms. Up until recently, the U.S. government was considering whether to subject the platforms to stricter regulation—for example, by removing their immunity from claims pursuant to [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230)—because of a widespread perception of failure to moderate harmful online content. However, the decision by the largest online platforms to deplatform President Trump in the aftermath of the failed insurrection attempt marks an odd reversal of roles: The platforms have taken drastic steps to protect the democratic institutions of the U.S. government in lieu of the government itself, which failed to adequately protect the Capitol. Almost in parallel to the deplatforming of the President by Facebook and [Twitter](https://fortune.com/company/twitter/), tech giants [Apple](https://fortune.com/company/apple/), [Google](https://fortune.com/company/alphabet/), and [Amazon](https://fortune.com/company/amazon-com/) withdrew the right-wing social network Parler from their app stores or web-hosting services. These developments stand in marked contrast to the traditional hands-off policies long held by online platforms, which for many years resisted calls for moderating false content, citing concerns about becoming arbiters of the truth. They displayed particular deference toward interfering with online content posted by world leaders—alluding to the public interest in obtaining the information they posted. The quick shift from refusing to serve as speech police to permanently blocking the President in response to the unprecedented postelection events raises, nonetheless, questions about the compatibility of the platforms’ new policies and practices with core freedom of expression principles, and the adequacy of the regulatory framework governing online platforms. The need to address such questions was implicitly acknowledged by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who alluded to [the measures taken by Twitter](https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-banning-trump-from-twitter-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-2021-1) vis-à-vis the President’s account as a “dangerous” precedent. As private entities, online platforms are not subject to constitutional limits on speech regulation under the First Amendment, but rather operate under a contractual framework established by terms-of-service agreements and community standards or rules. Still, given the significant market share held by a few online platforms and the dominance of online speech in the marketplace of ideas and in political discourse, they have become critical gatekeepers in the world of information. And while most still think of freedom of expression as a right exercised by individuals vis-à-vis governments, in the digital space the platforms operate as de factogovernments, exercising lawmaking, law interpretation, and law enforcement functions, including—apparently—the power to permanently banish individuals, groups, and businesses, an outcome that might be regarded as the virtual equivalent of exile for life. Lack of certainty around platforms’ policies and the processes of their interpretation and application also raises significant concerns about potential abuse of power, and about generating a chilling effect on political speech. Now that online platforms are evolving from republishers of third-party information—who may choose to exercise some editorial control over such content (protected by Section 230’s “good Samaritan” clause, authorizing the removal in good faith of objectionable content)—to gatekeepers of democracy and defenders of the public interest, legal and political checks over their newly exercised power need to be reevaluated. Three sets of questions should compose part of a review of platforms’ free speech policies, which can be undertaken by relevant stakeholders, including democratic government institutions, international bodies, academia, the media, and public interest groups: 1. Are community standards on political speech sufficiently detailed and precise in explaining what constitutes prohibited speech and what the consequences are for violating the said standards? In order to retain broad legitimacy, such standards ought to be compatible with recognized standards, such as those found in rule-of-law democracies or international human rights law. 2. Is decision-making regarding content moderation in political speech cases sufficiently transparent in terms of the process undertaken and the reasons given for specific speech-limiting decisions? 3. Do individuals and groups affected by content moderation decisions have an effective avenue of recourse to challenge such decisions? Ensuring that online platforms integrate good governance, human rights, and rule-of-law safeguards in their community standards and actual operations may help mitigate the “dangerous” precedent of deplatforming President Trump. Yuval Shany directs the Federmann Cyber Security Research Center of the Cyber Law Program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute and former chair of the UN Human Rights Committee. About the Author By [Yuval Shany](https://fortune.com/author/yuval-shany/) [See full bio](https://fortune.com/author/yuval-shany/) * Latest in Commentary * * [![raikes](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/ai-literacy-talent-pipeline-entry-level-jobs-jeff-raikes-microsoft-gates-foundation/) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [Microsoft](https://fortune.com/tag/microsoft/) [Jeff Raikes: AI is capturing cognition — and most companies are building a talent debt they don’t see yet](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/ai-literacy-talent-pipeline-entry-level-jobs-jeff-raikes-microsoft-gates-foundation/) By [Jeff Raikes](https://fortune.com/author/jeff-raikes/)April 15, 2026 15 hours ago [![clinton](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/leadership-careers-1990s-economy-ai-jobs-crisis-workforce-lessons/) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [disruption](https://fortune.com/tag/disruption/) [I was a government official in the 1990s and watched the economy get turned upside-down. It’s happening again](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/leadership-careers-1990s-economy-ai-jobs-crisis-workforce-lessons/) By [Maria Flynn](https://fortune.com/author/maria-flynn/)April 15, 2026 16 hours ago [![dees](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/pentagon-anthropic-ai-arms-race-open-source-national-security/) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [National Security](https://fortune.com/tag/national-security/) [A retired general’s warning: America can’t fight the AI arms race on tech it doesn’t control](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/pentagon-anthropic-ai-arms-race-open-source-national-security/) By [Robert F. Dees](https://fortune.com/author/robert-f-dees/)April 15, 2026 16 hours ago [![fudd](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/azzi-fudd-wnba-uconn-nil-deals-partnerships/) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [Sports](https://fortune.com/tag/sports/) [Azzi Fudd: how I learned to use NIL for transformation, not just transactions](https://fortune.com/2026/04/15/azzi-fudd-wnba-uconn-nil-deals-partnerships/) By [Azzi Fudd](https://fortune.com/author/azzi-fudd/)April 15, 2026 17 hours ago [![crowell](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson/) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [Retirement](https://fortune.com/tag/retirement/) [Retirees are facing a \$345,000 bill they never saw coming — and most aren’t prepared](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson/) By [Andrew Crowell](https://fortune.com/author/andrew-crowell/)April 14, 2026 2 days ago [![AI agents are acting like employees, but company structures still treat them like software](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/13/ai-agents-governance-identity-risk-okta/) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [Okta](https://fortune.com/tag/okta/) [AI agents are acting like employees, but company structures still treat them like software](https://fortune.com/2026/04/13/ai-agents-governance-identity-risk-okta/) By [Dan Mountstephen](https://fortune.com/author/dan-mountstephen/)April 13, 2026 2 days ago * Most Popular * * [![Billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott has donated again—a week after gifting millions to a college, she's just given \$70 million to Meals on Wheels America](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/13/billionaire-philanthropist-mackenzie-scott-donates-70-million-meals-on-wheels-america-feed-2-million-people/?itm_source=parsely-api) [Success](https://fortune.com/section/success/) [Billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott has donated again—a week after gifting millions to a college, she's just given \$70 million to Meals on Wheels America](https://fortune.com/2026/04/13/billionaire-philanthropist-mackenzie-scott-donates-70-million-meals-on-wheels-america-feed-2-million-people/?itm_source=parsely-api) By [Fortune Editors](https://fortune.com/author/fortune-editors/)April 13, 2026 3 days ago [![Retirees are facing a \$345,000 bill they never saw coming — and most aren't prepared](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson/?itm_source=parsely-api) [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) [Retirees are facing a \$345,000 bill they never saw coming — and most aren't prepared](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/retirement-healthcare-costs-medicare-planning-andrew-crowell-da-davidson/?itm_source=parsely-api) By [Fortune Editors](https://fortune.com/author/fortune-editors/)April 14, 2026 2 days ago [![Palantir CEO says working at his \$316 billion software company is better than a degree from Harvard or Yale: ‘No one cares about the other stuff’](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/article/billionaire-palantir-ceo-alex-karp-working-at-his-tech-firm-better-than-harvard-yale-princeton-degree-does-not-matter-gen-z/?itm_source=parsely-api) [Success](https://fortune.com/section/success/) [Palantir CEO says working at his \$316 billion software company is better than a degree from Harvard or Yale: ‘No one cares about the other stuff’](https://fortune.com/article/billionaire-palantir-ceo-alex-karp-working-at-his-tech-firm-better-than-harvard-yale-princeton-degree-does-not-matter-gen-z/?itm_source=parsely-api) By [Fortune Editors](https://fortune.com/author/fortune-editors/)April 14, 2026 2 days ago [![Warren Buffett’s first tax return showed \$7 owed to the IRS. The then paperboy and former Berkshire Hathaway CEO is now worth \$143 billion](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/warren-buffett-first-tax-return-age-14-owed-7-dollars-irs-berkshire-hathaway-ceo-net-worth/?itm_source=parsely-api) [Success](https://fortune.com/section/success/) [Warren Buffett’s first tax return showed \$7 owed to the IRS. The then paperboy and former Berkshire Hathaway CEO is now worth \$143 billion](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/warren-buffett-first-tax-return-age-14-owed-7-dollars-irs-berkshire-hathaway-ceo-net-worth/?itm_source=parsely-api) By [Fortune Editors](https://fortune.com/author/fortune-editors/)April 14, 2026 2 days ago [![Anthropic is facing a wave of user backlash over reports of performance issues with its Claude AI chatbot](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/anthropic-claude-performance-decline-user-complaints-backlash-lack-of-transparency-accusations-compute-crunch/?itm_source=parsely-api) [AI](https://fortune.com/section/artificial-intelligence/) [Anthropic is facing a wave of user backlash over reports of performance issues with its Claude AI chatbot](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/anthropic-claude-performance-decline-user-complaints-backlash-lack-of-transparency-accusations-compute-crunch/?itm_source=parsely-api) By [Fortune Editors](https://fortune.com/author/fortune-editors/)April 14, 2026 2 days ago [![He was coding at 12 like Elon Musk and became one of Google’s youngest-ever CMOs—but now says Gen Z is better off ice skating than learning to code](https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/placeholder_16x9.jpg)](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-bill-gates-coding-obsolete-says-ex-google-cmo-gen-z-career-advice/?itm_source=parsely-api) [Success](https://fortune.com/section/success/) [He was coding at 12 like Elon Musk and became one of Google’s youngest-ever CMOs—but now says Gen Z is better off ice skating than learning to code](https://fortune.com/2026/04/14/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-bill-gates-coding-obsolete-says-ex-google-cmo-gen-z-career-advice/?itm_source=parsely-api) By [Fortune Editors](https://fortune.com/author/fortune-editors/)April 14, 2026 2 days ago Rankings - [100 Best Companies](https://fortune.com/ranking/best-companies/) - [Fortune 500](https://fortune.com/ranking/fortune500/) - [Global 500](https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/) - [Fortune 500 Europe](https://fortune.com/europe/ranking/fortune500-europe/) - [Most Powerful Women](https://fortune.com/ranking/most-powerful-women/) - [Future 50](https://fortune.com/ranking/future-50/) - [World’s Most Admired Companies](https://fortune.com/ranking/worlds-most-admired-companies/) - [See All Rankings](https://fortune.com/ranking/) Sections - [Finance](https://fortune.com/section/finance/) - [Fortune Crypto](https://fortune.com/section/crypto/) - [Features](https://fortune.com/section/features/) - [Leadership](https://fortune.com/section/leadership/) - [Health](https://fortune.com/section/health/) - [Commentary](https://fortune.com/section/commentary/) - [Success](https://fortune.com/section/success/) - [Retail](https://fortune.com/section/retail/) - [Mpw](https://fortune.com/section/mpw/) - [Tech](https://fortune.com/section/tech/) - [Lifestyle](https://fortune.com/section/lifestyle/) - [CEO Initiative](https://conferences.fortune.com/event/the-fortune-ceo-initiative-2026/home) - [Asia](https://fortune.com/section/asia/) - [Politics](https://fortune.com/section/politics/) - [Conferences](https://fortune.com/section/conferences/) - [Europe](https://fortune.com/section/europe/) - [Newsletters](https://fortune.com/section/newsletters/) - [Personal Finance](https://fortune.com/section/personal-finance/) - [Environment](https://fortune.com/section/environment/) - [Magazine](https://fortune.com/section/magazine/) - [Education](https://fortune.com/education/) Customer Support - [Frequently Asked Questions](https://fortunecustomerservice.zendesk.com/hc/en-us) - [Customer Service Portal](https://fortunecustomerservice.zendesk.com/hc/en-us) - [Privacy Policy](https://fortune.com/privacy-policy/) - [Terms Of Use](https://fortune.com/terms-of-use/) - [Single Issues For Purchase](https://order.emags.com/fortune_single_issues) - [International Print](https://fortune.com/international-print-magazine-only-subscribers/) Commercial Services - [Advertising](https://fortune.com/advertising/) - [Fortune Brand Studio](https://fortune.com/brandstudio/fbs/portfolio/) - [Fortune Analytics](https://fortune.com/analytics) - [Fortune Conferences](https://fortune.com/conferences) - [Business Development](https://fortune.com/business-development/) - [Group Subscriptions](https://fortune.com/group-subscriptions/) About Us - [About Us](https://fortune.com/about-us/) - [Editorial Calendar](https://fortune.com/editorial-calendar/) - [Press Center](https://fortune.com/press-center/) - [Work At Fortune](https://fortune.wd108.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/Fortune) - [Diversity And Inclusion](https://fortune.com/workplace/diversity-inclusion) - [Terms And Conditions](https://fortune.com/terms-of-use/) - [Site Map](https://fortune.com/sitemap/) Rankings Sections Customer Support Commercial Services - [About Us](https://fortune.com/about-us/) - [Editorial Calendar](https://fortune.com/editorial-calendar/) - [Press Center](https://fortune.com/press-center/) - [Work At Fortune](https://fortune.wd108.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/Fortune) - [Diversity And Inclusion](https://fortune.com/workplace/diversity-inclusion) - [Terms And Conditions](https://fortune.com/terms-of-use/) - [Site Map](https://fortune.com/sitemap/) © 2026 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our [Terms of Use](https://fortune.com/terms-of-use/) and [Privacy Policy](https://fortune.com/privacy-policy/) \\| [CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice](https://fortune.com/california-privacy-policy/#notice) \\| [Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information]() FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice. [search by queryly](https://www.queryly.com/) [Advanced Search]() ![close](https://www.queryly.com/images/whitecloseicon.png)
Readable Markdown	The dramatic events of Jan. 6, 2021, represent not only a severe crisis for American democracy—the first takeover of the U.S. Capitol building since 1812—but also a possible tipping point in the power relationship between the U.S. government and the major online platforms. Up until recently, the U.S. government was considering whether to subject the platforms to stricter regulation—for example, by removing their immunity from claims pursuant to [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230)—because of a widespread perception of failure to moderate harmful online content. However, the decision by the largest online platforms to deplatform President Trump in the aftermath of the failed insurrection attempt marks an odd reversal of roles: The platforms have taken drastic steps to protect the democratic institutions of the U.S. government in lieu of the government itself, which failed to adequately protect the Capitol. Almost in parallel to the deplatforming of the President by Facebook and [Twitter](https://fortune.com/company/twitter/), tech giants [Apple](https://fortune.com/company/apple/), [Google](https://fortune.com/company/alphabet/), and [Amazon](https://fortune.com/company/amazon-com/) withdrew the right-wing social network Parler from their app stores or web-hosting services. These developments stand in marked contrast to the traditional hands-off policies long held by online platforms, which for many years resisted calls for moderating false content, citing concerns about becoming arbiters of the truth. They displayed particular deference toward interfering with online content posted by world leaders—alluding to the public interest in obtaining the information they posted. The quick shift from refusing to serve as speech police to permanently blocking the President in response to the unprecedented postelection events raises, nonetheless, questions about the compatibility of the platforms’ new policies and practices with core freedom of expression principles, and the adequacy of the regulatory framework governing online platforms. The need to address such questions was implicitly acknowledged by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who alluded to [the measures taken by Twitter](https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-banning-trump-from-twitter-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-2021-1) vis-à-vis the President’s account as a “dangerous” precedent. As private entities, online platforms are not subject to constitutional limits on speech regulation under the First Amendment, but rather operate under a contractual framework established by terms-of-service agreements and community standards or rules. Still, given the significant market share held by a few online platforms and the dominance of online speech in the marketplace of ideas and in political discourse, they have become critical gatekeepers in the world of information. And while most still think of freedom of expression as a right exercised by individuals vis-à-vis governments, in the digital space the platforms operate as de factogovernments, exercising lawmaking, law interpretation, and law enforcement functions, including—apparently—the power to permanently banish individuals, groups, and businesses, an outcome that might be regarded as the virtual equivalent of exile for life. Lack of certainty around platforms’ policies and the processes of their interpretation and application also raises significant concerns about potential abuse of power, and about generating a chilling effect on political speech. Now that online platforms are evolving from republishers of third-party information—who may choose to exercise some editorial control over such content (protected by Section 230’s “good Samaritan” clause, authorizing the removal in good faith of objectionable content)—to gatekeepers of democracy and defenders of the public interest, legal and political checks over their newly exercised power need to be reevaluated. Three sets of questions should compose part of a review of platforms’ free speech policies, which can be undertaken by relevant stakeholders, including democratic government institutions, international bodies, academia, the media, and public interest groups: 1. Are community standards on political speech sufficiently detailed and precise in explaining what constitutes prohibited speech and what the consequences are for violating the said standards? In order to retain broad legitimacy, such standards ought to be compatible with recognized standards, such as those found in rule-of-law democracies or international human rights law. 2. Is decision-making regarding content moderation in political speech cases sufficiently transparent in terms of the process undertaken and the reasons given for specific speech-limiting decisions? 3. Do individuals and groups affected by content moderation decisions have an effective avenue of recourse to challenge such decisions? Ensuring that online platforms integrate good governance, human rights, and rule-of-law safeguards in their community standards and actual operations may help mitigate the “dangerous” precedent of deplatforming President Trump. Yuval Shany directs the Federmann Cyber Security Research Center of the Cyber Law Program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute and former chair of the UN Human Rights Committee.
Shard	79 (laksa)
Root Hash	13809836321913650279
Unparsed URL	com,fortune!/2021/01/28/trump-banned-twitter-free-speech/ s443