<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ams6110</author><text>I have no expectation that any form of communication I make will be listened to. I can call my senator or Donald Trump on the phone but it&amp;#x27;s very unlikely I will actually be able to talk to them. I can send my senator or Donald Trump a letter but it&amp;#x27;s unlikely it will actually be read by them. There are many filters in place.  Twitter blocks are just another filter on a specific communications medium.</text><parent_chain><item><author>DoubleGlazing</author><text>I think the EFF are clutching at straws a bit. Blocking someone from contracting you on social media isn&amp;#x27;t really a freedom of speech issue -
 so long as an alternatives means exists. Though restricting them from reading your content if those posts are in an official capacity is very questionable. More so considering how much official communication is moving online.&lt;p&gt;For example Twitter now seems to have become a default channel of sorts for announcing power outages and for urgent press releases from government agencies. Is it right that someone misses out on updates because they were blocked?&lt;p&gt;Maybe what is needed is for twitter&amp;#x2F;facebook etc to have a special kind of &amp;quot;read only&amp;quot; blocking for government and public official accounts?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Officials Don&apos;t Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/when-officials-tweet-about-government-business-they-dont-get-pick-and-choose-who</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>betterunix2</author><text>&amp;quot;Blocking someone from contracting you on social media isn&amp;#x27;t really a freedom of speech issue - so long as an alternatives means exists&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Kicking someone out of a town hall meeting is not a free speech issue, so long as alternative means exist.  Kicking someone out of a public square is not a free speech issue, so long as alternative means exist.&lt;p&gt;The only difference in the Twitter case is that Twitter as  a private company can freely exclude whomever it wants.  The point is that a public official cannot direct Twitter to do so, which should include directing Twitter to block a particular user.</text><parent_chain><item><author>DoubleGlazing</author><text>I think the EFF are clutching at straws a bit. Blocking someone from contracting you on social media isn&amp;#x27;t really a freedom of speech issue -
 so long as an alternatives means exists. Though restricting them from reading your content if those posts are in an official capacity is very questionable. More so considering how much official communication is moving online.&lt;p&gt;For example Twitter now seems to have become a default channel of sorts for announcing power outages and for urgent press releases from government agencies. Is it right that someone misses out on updates because they were blocked?&lt;p&gt;Maybe what is needed is for twitter&amp;#x2F;facebook etc to have a special kind of &amp;quot;read only&amp;quot; blocking for government and public official accounts?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Officials Don&apos;t Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/when-officials-tweet-about-government-business-they-dont-get-pick-and-choose-who</url></story>