MPs from both sides of the House on Wednesday voiced concern about the way how Twitter was able to ban (then) President Donald Trump’s account.

Minister Owen Bonnici and Nationalist MP Clyde Puli said that while they understood the shameful circumstances which had led Twitter to its decision, the fact that a private company had such powers, even against a sitting US president, should be a matter of concern for all those who discussed checks and balances. 

The discussion came up as parliament was debating changes to electoral boundaries.   

Bonnici said that separation of powers was an important element of the electoral system. Malta’s electoral system, despite its defects, was far better than that of many other countries.

Other countries had various systems for an effective separation of powers. In The Netherlands, for example, whoever was made minister had to resign from parliament, and another candidate was elected instead.

In some countries, such as the US, ministers were technocrats. Yet there was no greater privilege for a politician than to be chosen by the people. And the people’s choice gave added legitimacy to one’s work as a politician.  

But being in office did not mean doing what one liked, and everyone was subject to laws and scrutiny. 

The assault on the US Congress was a truly shocking event, Bonnici said.
Also shocking, though less so, was how Twitter banned Donald Trump.

Of course, there were circumstances where Trump’s comments could, and had, led to a situation where people had died. 

But all those who believed in democracy needed to discuss what this decision implied. 

A giant American company, with no checks and balances, had been able to cancel the account of the US president. It could similarly do so for any European leader, indeed, anyone. Should this be allowed to go on as if nothing was happening?  

The circumstances true, were extraordinary, but even Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey had his doubts.

He had tweeted: “I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban Donald Trump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was it correct?”

I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?

— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021

Bonnici said that while freedom of expression had been liberalised, there were boundaries, with a red line being that one could not incite hatred and violence. Trump’s comments were not far off, with people having been killed after his remarks. 

But the new reality of the social media needed to be discussed. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had called for a debate on the status of big internet companies.  German Chancellor Merkel had said the situation was problematic, he observed. So had many media outlets. 

Clyde Puli, who spoke after the minister, said one could not have a situation where a private company had such big power of censorship.

Whoever wronged in what he said or wrote should pay the consequences, but a private company could not be sovereign. At this rate, one would end up handing power to companies with a commercial interest instead of elected politicians.