In a new form of censorship, social media lets writers block their readers.
I found out recently, and quite by accident, that a writer whose work I’ve read from time to time had blocked me on Twitter. It’s a digital first: never before in the history of letters have writers had the option of preventing readers from accessing their work.
I’m not talking about writers of private diaries, personal letters, or eyes-only top secret communiqués. I mean writers who write for the public. These writers—who used to be grateful that anyone was willing to glance at their work let alone read it all the way through—now have the power to say, “My words are for everybody else, but they’re not for you.”
Famous writers are doing this, blocking readers. Not just trolls, everybody blocks trolls. They’re blocking readers they just don’t like. Over the weekend, J. K. Rowling blocked one of her followers for tweeting an uncomfortable question about Johnny Depp acting in one of her new movies. Donald Trump routinely blocks readers of his Twitter feed who disagree with his policies.
The writer who blocked me isn’t high profile like them. Our work is not in competition, and I’ve never criticized his work either openly or in private. And yet he blocked me. He could simply ignore me, but he went the extra mile and blocked me. He doesn’t like what I write, or what I think, or maybe my profile pic, and that forfeits my right to read his tweets.
Maybe blocking readers is something that big-ego writers find appealing: from safe inside the internet’s echo-chamber they pretend that all their reviews are positive ones. It’s great they have so many readers that they can exclude a few, but is it wise to treat your audience with contempt?
Sometimes blocking may also be illegal. The Knight First Amendment Institute is suing Donald Trump because blocking any citizen’s access to presidential tweets, which are government communications announcing policy decisions, commenting on domestic and international affairs, and relaying information of public interest, may violate the First Amendment’s speech protection clause. That Trump’s tweets may also be insulting and unhinged further underscores the need for as many people as possible to see first hand the damage that they do.
I’m not against blocking: it’s an important tool to combat trolls, hecklers, and snoops. It’s a digital cone of silence that gives everyone a bit of privacy in cyberspace. But it concerns me when writers whose goal has traditionally been to get as many readers as possible, take advantage of blocking to limit the public’s right to read.
