Last week, Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante faced criticism after announcing on X that she would now block comments on her social networks. Some responded by saying that elected officials must accept the inconveniences that come with their position. Others even claimed that blocking comments was actually cutting a direct link with the population. They are completely wrong.
Let me tell you that no elected official chooses to be insulted or defamed. Nowhere in the job description or the fine print of such a contract does it specify that being subjected to verbal and moral abuse is part of the job.
Facebook, Twitter and others have unleashed a simmering anger that already existed, of course, but that had been contained until then. In my view, the normalization of defamation, lies, conspiracy and, above all, verbal and moral violence by social networks constitutes one of the greatest dangers threatening democracy today.
“If you’re not happy, sue me.” This is how some polemicists exercise their so-called freedom of opinion. This is exactly what the hosts of trash radio stations in Quebec City advocated—and still advocate, by the way—to justify their toxic and defamatory remarks. “Freedom, I shout your name!” We know the rest. Today, they have won the battle to the point that even judges agree with them when politicians block people on social media to protect their mental health.
Contrary to what some people claim—including these judges, who have clearly erred, in my opinion—social networks are not, strictly speaking, public spaces. They become so because the media relay discussions that take place there. In reality, they are made up of a multitude of echo chambers to which we subscribe according to our interests. And they are all managed by private companies according to well-defined commercial conditions. To have an account there or simply use their platforms, you must accept their conditions.
Each of these private commercial platforms offers different interaction options to access discussions. They also allow you to refuse to interact with certain people, or even block the ability for other users to tag you in a post.
Imagine a democratic society where you are forced to exchange and interact with people against your will. Unthinkable? Yet this is what is required of a handful of citizens, to whom we would like to impose total access, like politicians, artists, media figures, in the name of the sacrosanct freedom of expression. It is completely insane. The point here is not to prevent someone from expressing their opinion on an elected official, but to prevent them from doing so directly on their account or by directly challenging them. These private networks allow everyone to choose their interactions, how can we ask politicians to abandon this fundamental right on the pretext of their position?
Nowhere in our laws or democratic principles is it written that politicians must have an account or profile on a social network. It is a personal choice. And there is no rule that a politician, by registering on these platforms, is subject to different rules of use. It is a complete slippage to require separate conditions for certain people because of their job or function.
Certainly, in the political arena, in the media landscape or elsewhere, one can criticize the decisions of those who choose to block users or limit the identification of their profile. It is a question of freedom of expression, and this criticism can be freely formulated on these same social networks. But not being able to directly name an elected official or comment on their publications in no way hinders freedom of expression. In my opinion, imposing the opposite on politicians goes against the fundamental freedoms of use of a private digital platform.
To claim that social networks are a direct channel for contacting the population is also largely exaggerated. First, only a fraction of the population actually follows the accounts of an elected official. Second, there is no formal democratic framework regulating the interactions that take place there, unlike official bodies, such as councils or public consultations, which are marked out and regulated. Let us recall that you have to subscribe to access a user’s content, which makes it, in a way, a private space and not a public space.
And then, we are surprised to see so many elected officials resigning during their term and we are saddened to see how difficult recruitment has become. But who would want to dive into an arena where the rules are not the same for everyone? You really have to have public service in your body to accept such a sacrifice. The next time you judge a politician who has chosen, in the face of these anonymous people raging behind their keyboards, to preserve his mental health, think about it.