I saw that earlier and I do wonder what that means for members of the government in general on social media.
Trigger warning: references to N-word and rapeThere was a similar case here in Sweden last year, where a government-run bureau for presenting/promoting the image of Sweden to the outside world (tourism, business etc) had been leasing their official twitter account (handle @Sweden) to a mixed bag of volunteers. So each week they had someone new coming in - a business person, an artist, an activist, a rookie journalist, or any John Blow who happened to become familiar to the people handling the operation - and get to use the account for free during a week, tweeting about their daily life, their thoughts, and how they felt about Sweden. There was very little screening before anyone got selected, it seemed to be very informal.
This had already led to some very weird tweeting (one black guy wanted to "joke with the racists" and wrote, on a
public account; "I am the N**ro who will rape your sister and your daughter, they will moan for me, and you can't do a thing about it"), but when another political activist came in, kicked loose and also began using her own blocklist, a list she had built up together with her own activist friends, and even blocking people who had never replied to her "Sweden" tweets, the whole thing began to make a few headlines. The use of the blocklist was filed to the police, for the same reasons as with Trump - a public authority outlet can't walk around blocking people from reading them without very serious reasons - but it turned out that the bureau had resorted to their own solution to stay out of the courts:
They simply destroyed the blocklist from their records "by mistake", and then denied that it existed.
