For about a year now, we’ve spent countless hours checking up on our benevolent president’s Twitter account for his daily updates, whether it be a diplomatic snapshot or a hot opinion on a highly contested topic. Weirdly enough, he’s decided that blocking people from reading his tweets is a good choice. I’m not so sure that’s the case.
I believe he may be walking on a not-so-visible line between hindering freedom of speech and taking advantage of that very same right. The question here is: is this legal?
On one hand, it’s Twitter. Social media. A commodity of modern life where we can do and see whatever we want. If someone weren’t allowed to block someone from seeing their content, then the act of blocking wouldn’t even be available. Conversely, he’s POTUS. Is it okay for him, president of a country founded on the pillars of several freedoms (especially of speech), to stop people from hearing what he has to say?
What really makes this hard to chew on is that this is an unheard of occurrence. This is the first time we’ve had someone in such a powerful role who personally and regularly makes social media updates and block his citizens from viewing said updates.
Of course, there are already increasing numbers of concerned Twitter users, journalists, famous figures, and people like me who have learned of Trump’s actions and are additionally a little concerned who are making their voices heard on the subject. How ironic right. The odd danger of being blocked by Trump specifically for being upset because he’s blocking people is, well odd.
No matter what our POTUS decides to do on the matter going forward, some party is going to be further irritated. Personally, I don’t think it’s the correct decision for him to just block people from reading his tweets. But I wouldn’t go as far as saying that it’s illegal. Definitely not chill though.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to be in his position. Someone is gonna be upset with pretty much anything he does. I feel as though I’m pretty familiar with the idea of being flamed on the Internet. Plain and simple, it’s just a very frustrating thing. The only thing you can really do about it is block the flamers or just do nothing. But in choosing to do so, you set yourself up for more flaming. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Such is life.
For some reason, most people see making that choice to block someone as an act of weakness. Knowing that all your flaming has finally triggered your intended target to the point where they literally have to cut you out of their lives is evidence that you’re doing your job right. You’ve won, essentially. And what a victory it must be to be blocked by the president.
I honestly, can’t blame Trump. I probably would’ve cracked at some point too. In choosing between doing nothing and something, it seems silly to just do nothing so doing something is the logical choice. However, in choosing to do something, you’ve effectively signed a contract to continue doing something about it for the foreseeable future. Which is most likely why he’s chosen to keep blocking the flamers.
Now that it’s happening so much to a lot of people though, it’s sort of becoming a problem. I don’t think it’ll go to court or anything but that would be one hell of a debate. I’m sure he’s completely aware of people like me who have noticed and are talking about it and I’m sure he aware that this would happen when he made the initial choice. I just hope he has a plan to deal it.
I certainly do not agree with the choice he’s made, however. In my experience, the best way to deal with flamers is to just let them speak their piece without letting what they say get to you. Not necessarily tuning them out or even dwelling on the topic, but accepting their hostility and instead trying to see the best of it.
mack rogers writes 