In the aftermath of any high-profile crime, a pattern seems to repeat itself, the sudden disappearance of the alleged perpetrator’s social media accounts. This phenomenon occurred again on September 15 when Ryan Routh, accused of a political assassination attempt, had his Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) accounts disabled almost immediately after his name surfaced. While it’s standard procedure to disable social media accounts in the wake of mass shootings or politically charged crimes, it raises the question: Why is Big Tech so quick to scrub the digital footprints of individuals involved in these crimes?

The situation with Routh is particularly troubling for some because his political views-marked by extreme leftist beliefs and a fervent hatred of Donald Trump-are said to be captured in his social media posts. Yet, before the public could see these posts, tech giants moved swiftly to make them inaccessible. This isn’t the first time this has happened. A similar incident occurred when Thomas Matthew Crook shot Donald Trump and three others in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, with Crook’s social media accounts being locked almost immediately.

Why do social media companies act so quickly to scrub these accounts? What do they seek to hide? In a world where information is key to public understanding and accountability, this practice leaves many questioning whether Big Tech is censoring vital information that could shape public discourse. Given that Routh’s posts-reportedly reflective of typical leftist political rhetoric-were removed, some see this as an act of suppression rather than public protection.

Routh’s attack and the subsequent erasure of his online presence reignite long-standing concerns about censorship, transparency, and the role of social media platforms in controlling information. Although law enforcement may sometimes require the removal of content for investigative purposes, the speed at which accounts are disabled raises suspicions of collusion between Big Tech and federal authorities.

Despite inquiries sent to Facebook, X, and the FBI, no one from these organizations responded to questions about why Routh’s accounts were locked. Were these actions taken purely in response to law enforcement requests? Or was there a broader effort to shield Routh’s political motivations from public scrutiny?

These questions become even more relevant in light of the revelations from the so-called “Twitter Files.” Released in late 2022, these files exposed extensive communication between federal agencies and social media platforms. The documents revealed how law enforcement, especially the FBI, influenced decisions to suppress certain content, particularly around politically sensitive topics like COVID-19, the 2020 election, and Hunter Biden’s laptop. If this level of coordination exists, it begs the question: Is something similar happening now with Routh’s case?

The quick erasure of Routh’s digital footprint hinders media efforts to provide a comprehensive understanding of his motivations and political affiliations. If Routh indeed harbored extremist views, shouldn’t the public be informed? In the past, the public has had access to the social media posts of right-wing extremists involved in violence, with those posts serving as vital clues to understanding the broader ideological landscape that fostered their actions. Why, then, is the same transparency not afforded in cases where left-wing extremism is involved?

There is no denying that political violence in the US is on the rise, and these incidents are happening against the backdrop of a highly polarized society. Routh’s attack on a political figure is just one in a series of violent acts tied to the country’s deep political divides. What makes his case particularly significant is the timing-occurring during an election cycle that is already fraught with accusations of corruption, weaponization of federal agencies, and an erosion of democratic norms.

In this context, the decisions of Big Tech to remove posts and disable accounts have consequences far beyond their platforms. The removal of Routh’s posts leaves the public in the dark about the motivations behind his attack, allowing speculation and conspiracy theories to flourish. This lack of transparency can lead to a dangerous cycle where violence is seen as politically motivated but hidden from public view, leading to greater mistrust in both government institutions and social media platforms.

Social media companies often claim that they are private entities with the right to remove content as they see fit. But this line of defense is increasingly coming under scrutiny, especially as evidence mounts that platforms like Facebook and X have been influenced by federal authorities in their decision-making. As these platforms have grown into quasi-public utilities-serving as the primary means by which people consume and share information-their responsibilities to the public have similarly expanded. Removing content, especially in politically sensitive situations, without transparency or accountability undermines public trust.

Additionally, there are legitimate reasons for law enforcement to request the removal of content. For instance, videos of crimes in progress or planning of future violence are justifiably taken down to prevent harm. But in the case of Ryan Routh, none of the information from his social media appears to fall into these categories. According to those who accessed his posts before they were removed, Routh’s content mirrored the rhetoric of millions of other users on social media-extreme, yes, but not necessarily a direct threat to public safety.

If social media companies are working with law enforcement to remove certain accounts, there needs to be transparency about the process. While private companies, Facebook, X, and others, technically have the right to control what is posted on their platforms, they also wield enormous power over public discourse. Their decisions about which content to remove, especially in politically charged cases like Routh’s, have the potential to influence how the public understands political violence and extremism.

Attorney General Merrick Garland and his Department of Justice have also come under fire for what many see as the political weaponization of federal agencies. In an era when Americans are deeply divided, the actions of these agencies are increasingly viewed through a partisan lens. If there is indeed coordination between Big Tech and federal agencies in scrubbing the accounts of politically motivated attackers like Ryan Routh, the public deserves to know.

Given the growing number of politically motivated attacks, especially on presidential candidates, it is critical that the public has access to all relevant information. Social media platforms and law enforcement agencies must operate with greater transparency to ensure that the public remains informed about these incidents, regardless of the political affiliations of those involved.

In the case of Ryan Routh, the scrubbing of his social media accounts only raises more questions about Big Tech’s role in controlling information. If federal agencies are involved, they owe the American people a clear explanation of their actions.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel