Impress privacy chief

Trump from its platform at least until after Biden’s inauguration because the ‘‘risks of allowing the president to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great’’.

‘‘Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labelling his posts when they violate our policies,’’ Zuckerberg said. ‘‘We did this because we believe the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government,’’ Zuckerberg said.

Edwards said ‘‘much worse has been allowed and is still present on both platforms’’ than the posts to which the two companies referred.

‘‘Lawmakers should grasp the nettle and make rules for social media, rather than leaving it to each platform to set their own and police them, which they do [at the moment] very inconsistently.’’

Former National Party MP Brett Hudson disagreed, saying the bans were triggered by a breach of the social media firms’ terms and conditions, rather than being a question of ‘‘community standards’’ or freedom of speech.

‘‘I don’t think the state should seek to set those specific rules. An accessible means to ensure the platforms’ policies are administered fairly and consistently seems attractive though,’’ he tweeted.

‘‘Lawmakers should grasp the nettle and make rules for social media.’’

John Edwards

Privacy Commissioner