[ad_1]
No federal agency is more popular on Twitter than the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG). The reason: the crisis of the crown. Currently, more than 107,000 Twitter users follow the FOPH. But the authority does not want everyone. According to a “20 Minuten” report, 57 subscribers have been blocked since March.
Daniel Dauwalder, media spokesman for the Federal Department of Internal Affairs, refers to the social media rules of the FOPH. According to these, users can only distribute information that is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Also: «You agree to show respect. We remove or hide incomprehensible comments, advertising messages or false reports. “BAG also declares that it will not accept personal criticism, offensive or rude comments or contributions that violate copyright law.
Vomit and anger emojis
This approach has received criticism from Twitter users. The charge: censorship. For example, the user “in what kind of world do we live” no longer has access to the Twitter channel of the health authority: “I am absolutely surprised that a public health authority is allowed to block citizens during an international crisis,” she says . according to the report.
Therefore, the user was blocked on Monday. The trigger apparently was his reaction to a BAG post calling attention to his coronavirus check online. “Did you have a good weekend? Intensive care unit staff no, if you’re interested,” replied the user and posted a series of vomit and anger emojis. He wanted to criticize the fact that BAG no longer publishes numbers of cases on weekends. According to the user, BAG deleted her comment. She then posted a new tweet. “Feel free to delete my post during your weekends off, I’ll keep posting! You’re disgusting.”
Statistics as a cause?
Twitter user “Will B. Ryde-O’Myaz (Federal Council Account)” was excluded from the BAG. “My comments on the BAG and the crown ignorant flooding the comment column in the BAG’s daily posts probably led to the lockdown,” he says. The user admits that not all of his comments were factual and that emotions sometimes flared. “But what I do not believe is that a federal authority can silence users. That is not worthy of a federal authority in a democratic constitutional state. “
A user named “Resurrection” explains that he was blocked because he wanted to prove to the BAG based on statistics that he had been under mortality for months despite the coronavirus. “We have to defend freedom of expression in Switzerland. Critical voices should not be repressed ”, he demands.
“Talk without importance and without interest”
As the BAG Twitter channel shows, critical voices about the federal government’s crown strategy have not completely disappeared despite blocked users. For example, Twitter user Sigi commented in a post at Tuesday’s BAG press conference: “Who keeps seeing this inconsequential and uninteresting talk?” Another user is drawn to a comparison between the number of Covid 19 patients who died over the weekend in Switzerland and the victims of the mega explosion in Beirut. “The authorities’ ruling was decisive in both cases.”
There are sympathizers among MPs on both sides. CVP National Counselor Ida Glanzmann-Hunkeler supports action against critical or irrelevant positions. “With social media, we have an unprecedented communication mess in this crisis.” The authority’s Twitter channel must be informative for all citizens. “Therefore, it is legitimate for BAG to block users who express criticism.” Marcel Dobler, National Advisor to the FDP and founder of the Corona-Dialog platform, sees it differently: “As a broad spectrum public authority, the BAG must allow freedom of expression.” (noo)
