IN the INQUIRER’s June 6 issue, reader Erwin Rafael said that the inclusion of blogs and social networking sites, such as Facebook, in the coverage of the proposed Right of Reply bill, is not needed because such websites have interactive features that already provide a venue where “agrieved parties” can post their replies in real time.

Rafael’s comment needs clarification, without necessarily touching on the merits or demerits of the proposed bill. A quick look at the “Settings” menu of Facebook (FB) reveals that FB account owners are allowed to block anyone from accessing their accounts, seeing their profiles, or interacting with them (that is, including replying to comments/messages made by the account owners or putting in new comments/messages for the account owners). The blocking can be done by using various FB channels like the “Wall” or message posts.

Blocking anyone also cuts off the FB account owners’ current connection with the person blocked, if he/she also has FB accounts. Thus, if I understand correctly the FB’s Settings provisions, an FB account owner, for example, can launch a tirade against someone who can be read only by his/her network of friends/contacts. Unless one of the network snitches and forwards the tirade to the person concerned, that person will not know what is happening. But the subject of the tirade can create his/her own FB account and launch his/her rebuttals of the tirade. But, as mentioned earlier, he/she may not be able to directly reply to the tirade against him by an FB account owner because he/she can be blocked from that person’s account.

In the same manner, I believe that there are blog sites that allow blog owners to block comments on the things they write about.

—MCS ABIS, zsyle@yahoo.com