Dear Editor, 

I believe Twitter was in the right to ban Trump and the Congresswoman’s account permanently. No matter how much power someone has or their rank, they signed up for Twitter, meaning that they agreed to the Terms of Service. Disobeying that agreement has consequences, one of them being permanently banned. I don’t think banning Trump for his tweets are violating his freedom of speech. Like the article said, there’s a limit when it comes down to it. Twitter has every right to take down posts or ban accounts that seem fit enough to violate their Terms of Service. In my opinion, Trump knew the votes weren’t rigged, he just wanted to be re-elected. So he used Twitter to convince his supporters that the votes were rigged, and this resulted in the attack against the The United States Capitol that was allegedly committed by Trump’s followers in January of 2021. Believing that the election was rigged and stolen from Trump with no other evidence other than that he lost. So, I believe Twitter had every right to take down Trump’s Twitter permanently for the violence, danger, and misinformation he was spreading online.

Jager E. ~ sophomore

Dear Editor, 

I am writing this in response to the editorial. I think, overall, some great points were made; although I disagree. Social media platforms have every right to delete and ban comments they see as unfit. They are also entitled to ban accounts because it’s their company. But ethically and strategically, it’s not smart. Social media platforms were created to share people’s thoughts and ideas. If banning and blocking people becomes tolerated, what’s to stop them from banning people and ideas they disagree wit, leaving a select group remaining? That would defeat the whole reason for social media in the first place. They would also be able to claim any statement could invoke violence and therefore would need to be removed. In conclusion, letting a few comments be removed or a few people be banned could lead to an entire filtration system leaving only ideas that they agree with remaining. Defeating the point of social media and freedom of speech.

Alex G. ~ freshman

Dear Editor,

I completely agree with the information in this article. I think if people don’t want to follow the rules set by a social media platform, they don’t have to join. Social media is like any private company or business with their own set of rules and if some people want to spread false information and break those rules, they don’t deserve a voice on that platform when millions of people could see and believe this fake news. I understand when people say they think social media has too much power and I somewhat agree, but when it comes to setting rules for their own company, they can do whatever they want.

Sydney B. ~ senior

Dear Editor,

I believe that people’s freedom of speech has been limited by social media. Social media was meant to be a platform where you could express your opinions and say whatever you want. Now, if you state an opinion that contradicts the creator of the apps opinion, then you get banned or your account gets taken down. For example, even the president of the U.S. got banned for sharing his opinion. In my opinion, I think that freedom of speech in this country has been limited on social media and people should be able to say what they want.

Tyler P. ~ junior