Opinion article by Ilona Bērziņa
Donald Trump’s lawsuit against YouTube exposes a troubling reality – a handful of global tech corporations today can set the boundaries of public debate, bypassing even democratic institutions. This precedent shows that the fight for free speech is no longer just a political slogan, but an existential question for the future of democracy. If even the voice of a U.S. president can be silenced by an algorithm and a corporate decision, then freedom of speech in society is under serious threat.
Trump’s court victory against YouTube is just the latest example of a dangerous trend – major tech platforms increasingly assume the role of “judges” over free speech. Their official argument is always caution, safety, and the desire to prevent disinformation. But looking deeper, this caution often turns into selective censorship, affecting not only politicians but also wider society. It is no coincidence that several platforms and even television networks have already had to pay compensation for similar practices.
Censorship That Cost Millions
In 2021, Trump sued social media giant Meta and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg for blocking his accounts after the Capitol riots on the 6th of January. In January this year, a settlement was reached, with Meta paying the former president 25 million dollars in compensation. This allowed Meta to avoid a public admission that blocking Trump’s accounts had been unjustified and unlawful.
The platform X was also forced to pay Trump 10 million dollars to end litigation he initiated after being banned from the site in the aftermath of the 6th of January. The lawsuit was launched under former CEO Jack Dorsey. Although Elon Musk reinstated Trump’s account after acquiring the platform, Trump’s legal team continued the case until a settlement was reached.
Likewise, the CBS News television network had to reach an agreement with Trump after the controversial “60 Minutes” interview in which he was accused of manipulation. These examples confirm that this is not an isolated case, but rather a systemic practice in which Big Tech and major media hide political motivations behind the slogan of “safety.”
A Presidential Precedent
Trump is not an “ordinary user” but a former U.S. president. If even a president’s voice can be erased from the world’s largest video platform, it means that no voice is safe. This case demonstrates that Big Tech’s power stands above even a democratically elected leader.
If a president can be “deleted” from the digital sphere, who will be next? In a democracy, free speech cannot depend on a few offices in Silicon Valley or on politically motivated algorithms. The more such precedents arise, the closer we get to a situation where media and society are forced into self-censorship, fearing sanctions.
The blocking occurred after the 6th of January, but it was done at the discretion of the platforms, not by court ruling. This raised suspicions that the decision was not only about security but also political pressure or value judgments. The result – one of the most powerful politicians was silenced without legal process. This set a dangerous precedent that could have had severe consequences in the future, had it not been for this legal victory and the unprecedented compensation, even by YouTube’s standards.
The 24.5 million euros payout is a significant sum even for YouTube. It shows that the company was willing to pay to avoid a lengthy public trial and further reputational damage. It also indirectly confirms that Trump’s legal team had strong arguments.
Business Model or Political Censorship?
Trump’s case is not just about him. It is about principle – whether the freedom to speak is a right, or a privilege that “big players” can revoke at will. And if society allows this, the grip of censorship will only tighten. This case is not isolated – similar settlements were reached with Meta and X. It reveals that the entire system of major platforms operates on the same principle: “silence first, pay later.” Which raises the question: is this a business model, or a mechanism of political censorship?
Read also: Trump wins in court against YouTube: when does caution turn into censorship?