“Blood and glass" and the power of Big Tech

A little more than ten years after the start of the Arab Spring — a popular pro-democracy revolution helped along by Facebook and Twitter — the world's largest social media platforms this week banned the US president for inciting deadly violence in the United States.

If ever there were an illustration of the simultaneous promise, peril, and more importantly the power of social media to shape our lives and politics, this is it.

Not surprisingly, the Trump ban — and the decision by Apple, Amazon, and Google to expel other right-wing platforms where Trump supporters had plotted violence — has raised a host of thorny questions about how to define free speech, how to regulate tech companies, and what comes next at a delicate and dangerous moment in the "world's oldest democracy." Let's decode some of it.

This isn't, legally speaking, a "free speech" debate. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution offers no inalienable right to post on Twitter or Facebook, much less to be published, say, by Simon and Shuster. What's more, free speech laws generally stop short of permitting incitement to violence, the primary reason for the tech companies' recent actions.

But it is about the staggering and seemingly arbitrary power of technology companies to shape what is, in practice, the main public square of the 21st century.

Agree or not with the tech companies' decisions here, we don't know much about how those decisions were reached, or by whom. Well beyond Trump's supporters, critics as wide-ranging as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian dissident Alexey Navalny, and the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union pointed out the dangers of arbitrary tech censorship, or the potential powerlessness of people with far less power and recourse to fight back than the US president.

Part of the reason that this is even an issue is that the tech companies have gotten so big in the first place. If Facebook had 200,000 users rather than 2 billion, it wouldn't matter much. So implicit in all of this is the question, again, of if/how to regulate tech companies, and whether to reduce their power to control speech and markets in ways that may inflict harm on society.

Three regulation models. Globally, there are basically three main approaches to tech regulation at the moment. In China, tech companies — some of the world's largest — are privately-run but expected to act as the loyal arms of an authoritarian state, advancing its interests at home and abroad (sometimes even with help from Silicon Valley). In the EU, where by contrast there are very few tech firms of global scale, governments set strict rules on privacy, speech, competition, and transparency which companies must adhere to in order to gain access to a lucrative market of 500 million relatively high-income people.

Lastly, the US — cradle of what are still the world's most influential tech giants — has taken a hands-off approach: tech companies have until now been left largely to regulate themselves, and enjoy certain protections against liability for material posted on their sites. That light touch is what helped them become giants in the first place.

Where does the US go now? In recent years both mainstream US political parties have warmed to the idea of stronger regulation of tech companies, though for different reasons. Republicans allege liberal bias in Silicon valley, while Democrats are primarily worried about policing hate speech and protecting privacy.

Last week's events have supercharged both sides' concerns: Republicans are crying foul over the "deplatforming" of their supporters, while top Democrats see those actions as too little, too late. "It took blood and glass in the halls of Congress" for tech firms to act, said Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, a leading voice on tech regulatory issues.

Of course, as a result of last week's Georgia Senate runoff, it is now Democrats who will assume (razor-thin) control over Congress along with the White House, putting them in a position to start advancing their vision of what better tech regulation should look like.

More from GZERO Media

This summer, Microsoft released the 2025 Responsible AI Transparency Report, demonstrating Microsoft’s sustained commitment to earning trust at a pace that matches AI innovation. The report outlines new developments in how we build and deploy AI systems responsibly, how we support our customers, and how we learn, evolve, and grow. It highlights our strengthened incident response processes, enhanced risk assessments and mitigations, and proactive regulatory alignment. It also covers new tools and practices we offer our customers to support their AI risk governance efforts, as well as how we work with stakeholders around the world to work towards governance approaches that build trust. You can read the report here.

- YouTube

Brazil’s Supreme Court has sentenced former President Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison for plotting to overturn the 2022 election and allegedly conspiring to assassinate President Lula. In this week's "ask ian," Ian Bremmer says the verdict highlights how “your response… has nothing to do with rule of law. It has everything to do with tribal political affiliation.”

Supporters of main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) attend a rally to protest against the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu, the mayor of Istanbul and main rival of President Tayyip Erdogan, a day after the removal of the CHP's Istanbul provincial head Ozgur Celik by a court over alleged irregularities in a 2023 CHP provincial congress, in Istanbul, Turkey, September 3, 2025.
REUTERS/Umit Bektas/File Photo

After a weekend of mass protests in Turkey, a court in Ankara has postponed its decision in a highly charged case that could oust Turkey’s main opposition leader – and boost the fortunes of long-time President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

- YouTube

China is going all in on renewables, breaking monthly records on clean energy installation and generation. Bill McKibben tells Ian Bremmer that Beijing's bet on solar and wind gives them a competitive edge on a new episode of GZERO World.

Stephen Graham, winner of Best Lead Actor in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie and Best Writing for a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie, Owen Cooper, Best Supporting Actor in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie, and Erin Doherty, Best Supporting Actress in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie, for "Adolescence", Best Limited or Anthology Series pose with their awards at the 77th Primetime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles, California, U.S., September 14, 2025.
REUTERS/Daniel Cole

8: Netflix teen murder series "Adolescence" won eight Emmys including for best limited series. Supporting actor Owen Cooper,15, became the youngest male actor to win an Emmy.