On Thursday, January 7, Facebook finally banned Donald Trump from the platform.
It was five years too late to do any real good, and came only in the aftermath of white insurgents storming Capitol Hill.
But Emily Ratajkowski says that the social media behemoth should not engage in censorship ... not even to save America from stochastic terrorism.
She is even spinning a wild conspiracy theory that even her biggest fans struggle to support.
"Anyone else feel like proper amount of capital police being absent/letting Trump people in/providing insane visuals of MAGA dudes on the floor of the house was wildly convenient," Emily's tweets began.
In that same tweet, she continued, asking if it was all too convenient and naturally led "to justifying big tech’s rollout of censorship?"
"Know this is going to be an unpopular take but seems worth pointing out," Emily then wrote.
"This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER," Emily expressed.
She explained her reasoning: "If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off"
Emily then made a comparison to Black Lives Matter civil rights protesters that was extremely tone deaf. She quickly deleted it, but we will show it to you in a moment.
"My concern is that this gives big tech the opportunity to shut down 'leftist extremists' who are important political organizers," Emily's tweets went on to say.
Social media has become a vital tool in grassroots activism, sharing of news, and organizing political and civil rights events.
She made it clear that she worries that genuine bad actors like members of the Trump crime family could be used to set a precedent of political censorship, censorship that might extend to non-fascists.
A Twitter user astutely reminded Emily that leftists have been roadblocked, deplatformed, and blacklisted by tech companies for literal decades.
"I’m aware. And before tech leftists were being blacklisted by other means," Emily replied.
Her response continued: "People responding to my tweet somehow do not understand what license this gives big tech to continue to do so this time with people cheering. Patriot act 2.0?"
Others asked for her to clarify her initial tweet, wondering if she truly believes that big tech companies are secretly colluding with Trump -- censoring him now so that they can censor grassroots organizers later.
"I’m saying it’s very convenient to justify taking away more rights & privacy," Emily explained.
"Correct," she said when another tweet noted that tech giants can already censor whomever they please. Emily continued: "Now they have they’ll have the country cheering as they do tho..."
Before we go into her argument, we have to address the truly tone deaf, deleted tweet.
"Imagine that a group of BLM protestors managed to get into the capitol and thena figurehead from the left was deactivated by Zuck? Not okay," Emily wrote.
Yikes. Comparing Black Lives Matter protesters, whose sole purpose is asking to not be murdered, to armed white insurgents storming federal buildings is ... well, apples and oranges. It's also nauseating.
To address Emily's concerns, we first have to note that this is not unprecedented.
Social networks are private entities, with every legal right to censor whomever they like.
They have deplatformed awful people before, though they tend to do so years too late and only when pressure mounts.
Alex Jones losing his platform in 2018 did not lead to Stacey Abrams being shut out of social media.
Why? Because they're unrelated. One guy circulates malicious, racist conspiracy theories for profit, the other is a brilliant and compassionate politician. There's no slippery slope there.
Which leads us to our next point.
Bad things happening to bad people -- in this case, mild deplatforming of a fascist maniac determined to tear the country down with him rather than accept reality -- is not the same as bad things happening to good people.
People can judge each instance of deplatforming for themselves and evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. That comes with having a brain.
In the mean time, tech giants have no more or less power today than they did a week ago.
They could always remove anyone they want from social media, it's just that most of the time, they simply choose not to remove dangerous despots until it's too late -- out of greed.
I like Emily Ratajkowski -- because she's a smart and compassionate person, not just because she's one of the most gorgeous women in the world.
It's a shame that she has found her thoughts on this slippery slope. The deplatforming of Donald Trump is a good thing. This should have happened five years ago.
