Politics of Blocking Social Media Trolls

The politics of blocking social media supposedly is a gray area. Like the national debt, the lack of quality dental service for the poor, and preventing the U.S.A. from evolving to no more than a cheapest labor, no corporate tax zone for global plutocrats as an equivalent to airport duty-free shops. Government has trouble in deciding how to handle trolls attacking its social media web sites.

The fault lies mostly with Twitter, Facebook and others that allow hostile posts to co-exist with the good. If the primary page user is to really ‘own’ his page he or she needs the ability to edit what appears there or deny it altogether as any newspaper or magazine editor would.

The primary user generally does not have the ability to sort all posts into good input or troll- the equivalent of spam. Politicians need to be sensitive about the right of people to express their true opinions to those in political office-or even to political offices and departments, yet primary page user politicians also need to keep bad trolls from taking over the primary user page. The easiest and most democratic thing to do would be for Twitter and Facebook to create different streams of comments paths that the primary user may sort comments into if he wants, rather than to just delete them.

Comments that praise an evil and corrupt, malevolent democrat Senator seeking to flood the nation with illegal aliens ought not be posted for re-enforcing corruption while opposition comments are deleted or alternatively allowed to drown out the corrupt supportive commentary if there are so many that they dwarf those in support. Even corrupt political ideas need to be treated equally as far as input and expression goes. The main thing is to allow the primary user to sort ideas into friend and foe streams as he or she or uncertain and confused chooses.

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Alaska-Legislature-looks-into-social-media-blocking-441151523.html