Hereford Times editor John Wilson says the chaos unleashed by President Trump is forcing social media to pay heed to the sort of rules and ethics responsible publishers have been following for decades

AMERICAN social media giants have been criticised by some for removing US President Donald Trump from their networks.

He was silenced after allegedly encouraging the violent insurrection that left five people dead and the nation’s reputation severely tarnished last week.

The President’s increasingly inflammatory remarks broke the patience of firms such as Facebook and Twitter, who cited the “risk of further incitement of violence”.

Slowly but surely these laid-back California-based big tech firms, who have so stubbornly resisted taking responsibility for the content on their platforms, are being drawn into making editorial decisions.

Critics are alarmed that the billionaire owners of these firms have such powers over public discourse that they are able to silence even the President of the United States. But decisions like this – though rarely of such historic proportions – are ones responsible editors have been taking for years.

They are made based on the recognition that free speech does not mean people can say whatever they like.

There must be restraint, because without it some would feel free to insult and bully those with whom they disagree, and public debate would descend – as if so often does online – into the virtual equivalent of a brawl in the town square.

In such free-for-alls reputations can be trashed, lives can be put at risk, and democracies can be brought to the brink by autocratic narcissists like Trump.

Newspapers and other responsible media have always known this and controlled – critics would say censored – the voices of those who seek to foment unrest and hatred, or fail to give regard to common decency.

In doing so they obey, in this country, laws that prevent editors publishing material that unfairly damages reputations or incites hatred that could lead to harm. Editors are also subject to a strict ethical code governing their behaviour, with fines of up to £1 million for publications that break the rules.

But the social media firms have been able to avoid such responsibility under Section 230, a legal provision in the US Communications Decency Act that gives them immunity from prosecution for any malign content on their platforms.

Social media has been a force for good in many respects: it has given a voice to those who had none, it has brought people together and given enjoyment to millions.

But freed in large measure from the cost of ensuring the content they make available is decent, lawful, accurate or fair, the effect has been to enrich these firms and make them immensely powerful.

They have devastated in particular the business models of newspapers in their own country and around the world, who are obliged to play by a set of rules that are more onerous, but better for society as a whole.

But now each step social media takes in response to the storming of Congress is an editorial decision based on the laws, ethics and values that guide the rest of the trusted publishing universe. Once you start taking a stand, deciding what you think is right and wrong, you cannot and perhaps should not retreat.

Welcome to the real world, dudes!