Censorship and metapower

Mark Zuckerberg is the world's fourth richest person with $97.5 billion; he is nothing less than the youngest entrepreneur (37 years old) to have a wealth of assets in the ten mega-million dollar ranking.  

On the contrary, amidst the imprisonment and detention decreed in several cities and entire countries, Zuckerberg's wealth has grown as more and more people have begun to communicate with their relatives and friends via social networks; also used for "home office" and virtual business meetings.  

The American, a graduate of Harvard University, has been in the spotlight since he launched Facebook in 2004. It is said that thanks to an internal communication network at the university called ConnectU, a model he has emulated, he has been accused by other colleagues of "appropriating his idea" and violating copyrights. 

His meteoric rise to the ranks of the richest and most powerful has been accompanied by a series of ethical, moral and political controversies with social consequences on the forms of communication and interaction between people. 

The use of their social networks: Facebook, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram has enabled billions of people to meet, communicate with each other, have a new way of knowing each other and even build relationships; the advantage of immediacy is something that appeals to potential users.  

However, there are many implications and many criticisms of its ethical code, the filters for the information processed and shared in these social networks have turned into receptacles for incitement to hatred, terrorism, rebellion, as well as channels filled with misinformation, boots, cybercriminals, rapists, paedophiles and a nest of false news.  

There have been unfortunate cases of people broadcasting their suicides and reckless acts in real time, often with fatal results, while child protection organisations repeatedly insist on Facebook and Instagram of the risks of encrypting their platform as this would allow "greater freedom" for child predators. 

There is less and less information and disinformation in these communication channels, but there is also a disturbing fact, a latent reality that many users of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp intuitively and tacitly accept: that their accounts are read by others and that their privacy is constantly violated.  

Zuckerberg insists that this is not the case, but since the profits of his companies come from the advertising on his pages, there is always doubt as to how the young tycoon markets his entire user database... in whose hands does the precious information come, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon or the White House? 

Of course, there is censorship and meta-power. A few days ago, Twitter decided to permanently close Donald Trump's account, after what it considered an incitement to violence through his profile @realDonaldTrump and as a one-off event before the regrettable events of the assault on the Capitol - on January 6 - which ended with five deaths; Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube followed with the profile's termination. 

Jack Dorsey, president of the company, admitted that this drastic decision sets a "dangerous precedent" but said he was not happy about it and did not feel proud even though "it was the right decision". 

After the controversial measure, Twitter's shares fell by 6.4% on Wall Street while generating growing discontent, especially among various political leaders who do not necessarily agree with Trump, but with freedom of expression. 

From the EU, German chancellor Angela Merkel said she sees Trump's censorship as "problematic". For her part, Steffen Seibert, a spokesperson for the German government, said Merkel and other members of her cabinet consider that what is acceptable would be for "the state or parliament" to establish a framework to regulate the use of social networks and from the perspective that only legislators should and can "restrict" rights such as freedom of expression. 

It seems to me that if there is incitement to violence, the account should be closed, although it is something else to censor information and there should be a policy at the global level to curb such actions, as well as the ability to manipulate information and use data. Who has the power?