Facebook, Google, Twitter and other Internet firms have incurred the ire of President Trump for some time now and, earlier this year, he looked to curtail their operations and hold them legally accountable for what is carried on their platforms.

Many of the tech CEOs’ have remained deferential and have not forcibly engaged the White House which sees them as adversaries looking to take down Donald Trump while perpetuating a liberal agenda.

In September, the Trump administration looked to institute antitrust measures against Google with the President saying: “In recent years, a small group of technology platforms have tightened their grip over commerce and communications in America. They’ve used this power to engage in unscrupulous business practices while simultaneously waging war on free enterprise and free expression.”

President Trump continues to accuse Google of stifling competition and having a monopoly on online advertising, citing that it controls 90 per cent of global web searches.

He makes it very clear that his government is actively looking to amend Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act 1996, which reads: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

This was specifically designed to protect freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet.

TRUMP ACCUSES BIG TECH OF CONSPIRING AGAINST HIM

Two days after the presidential election and, staring defeat in the face, Trump launched a tirade from the White House press room against the way the votes were being counted and said that the big tech companies were part of a conspiracy to undermine his chances of re-election and interfered in the process.

President Trump declared to the world: “If you count the legal votes I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us. We are looking at the votes that came in very late. I have already won many critical states including massive victories in Florida, Iowa, Indiana and Ohio to name just a few.

“We won these and many other victories despite historic interference from big media, big money and big tech. As everybody saw, we won by historic numbers and the pollsters got it knowingly wrong.”

It must be a scary proposition for the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Google to face the fact that a U.S. President and Attorney-General has them in their crosshairs and possess the ability to irreparably alter their business models.

CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, speaking before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet last month, gave notable insight on how Internet platforms work, their role in modern society and how they can be regulated.

He said: “Everyday millions of Americans use the Internet to share their experience and discuss issues that matter to them. Setting the rules for online discourse is an important challenge for our society and there are principles at stake that go beyond any one platform.

“How do we balance free expression and safety? How do we define what is dangerous? Who should decide? I don’t believe private companies should be making so many decisions about these issues by themselves. At Facebook, we often have to balance competing equities. Sometimes the best approach from a safety or security perspective isn’t the best for privacy or free expression so we work with experts across society to strike the right balance. We don’t always get it right but we try to be fair and consistent. The reality is that people have very different ideas and views about where the line should be. Democrats often say we don’t remove enough content and Republicans often say we remove too much.”

WHAT’S THE LIMIT ON ONLINE SPEECH?

The Facebook boss acknowledged that companies like his get criticism from both sides, which doesn’t mean that it is getting it right, rather it means big disagreements on the issue persists and the issue still remains, where should the limit be on online speech?

Zuckerberg continued: “People can reasonably disagree about where to draw the line; that is a hallmark of democratic societies, especially here in the United States with our strong First Amendment tradition. But it strengthens my belief that when a private company is making these calls, we need a more accountable process that people feel is legitimate and gives platforms certainty.

He does not hold the view that online platforms should have their own way and is calling for regulation, inviting Congress to play a role which will give the public confidence and sees to it that “the process is carried out in a way that balances society’s deeply held values appropriately”.