Is Emily Ratajkowski threatened by Mark Zuckerberg? Model says ‘if he can shut president, he can shut any of us’

One social media user asked, "So will you advocate for no censorship??? When does it stop? If you have a platform use it."


                            Is Emily Ratajkowski threatened by Mark Zuckerberg? Model says ‘if he can shut president, he can shut any of us’
Emily Ratajkowski, Mark Zuckerberg (Getty Images)

On January 7, CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg issued a long statement on his official handle, in which he said that all of Donald Trump's posts on his official Facebook and Instagram would be blocked "indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete", in the wake of the violence at the U.S Capitol. And now, Emily Ratajkowski has questioned his action citing the "power" the tech giant possesses. The actress-model shared a series of tweets on January 7, in which she has said that if Zuckerberg could "shut the president up/off, he can shut any of us up/off."



 

In the following tweet, she asked her followers if anyone feels "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 to justifying big tech’s rollout of censorship?" However, she has made her stance on Trump's ban from major social networking sites clear by writing, "My concern is that this gives big tech the opportunity to shut down 'leftist extremists' who are important political organizers."



 

 



 

Social media users were quick to react to Ratajkowski's tweets, with some asking if she was implying through her posts that there should be no censorship, while others sided with Zuckerberg. 

One tweeted, "You understand capitalism, right? Big tech companies are privately owned. They can determine who their customers are. You are a customer of a social media platform. You can decide to use it or not. They can decide to let you use it or not. No shoes, no shirt, no service." While another added, "No shit, huh? And you cheered on the unshackling of the monster. Too late, kid. Sooner or later, you'll be on the menu." One Twitter user asked, "When did having a Twitter account become a constitutional right? Does the Constitution guarantee a platform for speech? Must a newspaper print your story? No one is denying Trump's speech, there denying him a platform." Adding to the above tweets another user said, "So will you advocate for no censorship??? When does it stop? If you have a platform use it."



 



 



 



 

What does Zuckerberg have to say?

In his Facebook post, Zuckerberg has clearly stated that Trump was banned from the platform after the chaos at the Capitol, which demonstrates that he "intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden."

Mark Zuckerberg (Getty Images)

"His decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the US and around the world. We removed these statements yesterday because we judged that their effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence," he stated further. 

He concluded the post by saying, "We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great," before adding that his company had extended block on Trump's social media sites indefinitely. 

If you have a news scoop or an interesting story for us, please reach out at (323) 421-7514