his twitter has done nothing more than to piss off most of the country and give his base something to jerk off too. i'd pay real money to find a tweet that sparked a good reaction- or at least didn't create a new joke for snl to ride for a month. even when he does post a policy (like the transmission ban) it's done in the most unprofessional way ever it can't help but spark a stuffstorm. nobody is getting informed by his twitter, they're all laughing at it
i think the point is that, regardless of the outcome or response, if the account is being used to communicate public policy then it's not right to silence [real] people from responding to express their concerns, support, or other thoughts, even if that input is ultimately inconsequential, as most direct calls, letters, or meetings you might have with elected officials probably would be on their own. effectively forbidding people from interacting with a relevant public official on policy matters stifles free speech, regardless of how easy it is to implement that obstacle for them. politicians aren't obligated to do your bidding or listen to every word you have to say, but they are obligated to make sure everyone has equal access to whatever media of communication exists between them and the citizens they affect. silencing particular individuals create unequal access to this communication.
again, this is all assuming it's politics. personal matters are different, and i'd be hesitant to say the same principle should apply there, because as individuals, politicians are still entitled to a safe private life
