Free speech is vital to liberal democracies. However, social media has also been used to radicalise, recruit, and co-ordinate attacks on vital democratic institutions. Because of this threat, we have a case for justified suspension of public communication.

I have spent the past three years researching the behaviour of extremists online, and it was clear that their passions were inflamed, and they intended to come together to fight. The speeches at the rally prior to the violent attacks were simply the spark that set fire to fuel that had been building for days, weeks, months, and years prior to January 6.

For some, President Trump's lifetime ban from Twitter, and other social media giants like Facebook, Instagram, and even YouTube, has been a long time coming. For others, they are deeply concerned about the power that these technology companies have over public expression. Australia's acting Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, stated his unease at the bans, citing the liberal democratic value of free speech. While we ought to be worried about the power that information and communication technology giants have, these worries about free speech are countered by the need to keep our democratic institutions safe from similar attacks in the future.

For years prior to the attacks, social media and other online communication platforms have played a fundamental role in radicalising individuals. The beliefs of people who supported the President have been steadily divorced from reality, and intensified through online activity. This process is well known to those studying violent extremism.

Social media creates and reinforces echo chambers. In the US case, we saw the President himself repeatedly use social media to contribute to disinformation and the ideas that Democrats were radical socialists, and Republicans who didn't support his view of the world were traitors.

In the months before the Capitol invasion, social media was used to recruit more supporters to President Trump's cause, and spread the idea that they ought to fight for him. This increased in intensity following Joe Biden's election. Phrases such as "stop the steal" spread across the internet, and brought those who were unhappy with the election outcome together. Online communities were able to mutually reinforce the belief that the election was stolen, despite overwhelming evidence that it was fair and legitimate, and the lack of any credible evidence otherwise. The President and his supporters used social media to both maintain his lies about the outcome, and to draw those dissatisfied with his loss to his banner.

READ MORE:

Then in the weeks and days leading up to the attack, social media was used to co-ordinate people. Many online communities spoke openly about going to Washington, D.C. to not just protest the outcome, but to forcibly and violently intervene to stop and overturn the outcome. Social media, the echo chambers it creates, and the ways that groups internally radicalise led to degradation of norms like trusting the outcome of the election.

It is possible that this radicalisation, recruitment, and co-ordination could have occurred without social media. Simply being US president gives someone an audience and volume that no other individual has. However, information and communication technologies played a vital role in pushing people's beliefs further from reality - in inflaming their passions, and giving them a specific target for their attacks. These beliefs and motivations are not going to disappear on January 20. The outgoing President has shown no remorse for his role in the attacks, and supporters have threatened more attacks in the lead-up to, or possibly the day of, Joe Biden's inauguration. Information and communication technology companies need to ensure their products are not used to aid ongoing violence.

Though social media bans amount to a reduction in one's capacity to publicly communicate, rather than an end to one's free speech, we do need to consider if those bans can be justified. Just as we see fit to stop terrorists from using social media to radicalise, recruit, and co-ordinate online, we ought also stop political extremists from doing the same.