Everyone should be able to follow the President’s account

Twitter which is one of the most popular social media network is used by not only civil people but by celebrities and governors, presidents as well. As on every other similar pages to Twitter, you can have a choice to block those who you do not want to be able to look at your profile, your comments, or anything you share. The article is about the president-elect, Donald Trump, whether he should or not be allowed to block people such as journalists, reporters because of their negative remarks of him.

In the first paragraph, the writer of the article claims the following: “In a modern democratic society keeping the social media account of a president open to all ought to be a matter of custom.”

To my mind, this statement is inaccurate, since a user, whoever he or she is, should have the right to decide whether he or she wants certain people to see what they post or share.

In the second paragraph the writer continues this point of view by expressing that the right decision for Trump would be to unblock those who are now unable to see his account when he enters his office. The writer does not support her claims about why this should work this way, she only mentions requirements. According to her, Twitter and other social media platforms are part of the new normal, a shared reality that demands new best practices about press freedom and good governance.

Nevertheless, these platforms are several times used for showing other personality than you really have. Therefore, it is totally different when, in this case, a President gives speeches in live or points out his opinion via the Internet. In these cases, you had better stick to the norms, and accept that social media and live manifestation are two completely distinctive things.

The other author reflecting to the same topic thinks about the issue quite reasonably. On the one hand, she points out that the choice to block is no different from a decision to decline an invitation to a conference. This is the opposite of the other writer’s opinion.

On the other hand, she also says that if the president blocked followers only to separate himself from inconvenient truths or criticism, it would be a different story. This argument seems quite reasonable since if the president exclusively accepts positive comments, it would not be a fair attitude from him.

All in all, social media platforms may have both positive and negative sides; however they cannot replace real life. One should not require from a president to behave in a way he would in reality in front of thousands of people, answering to journalists, or giving interviews. No one could be obliged to do so. Social media is another world.