A Common-Sense Fix for County Social Media

Warren County can fix a recurring social media problem before it becomes a larger public trust issue.

Residents will disagree about development, taxes, public events, and county decisions. But when a county or county-affiliated page invites public comment, lawful criticism should not disappear simply because it is uncomfortable or distracting.

Last month, residents questioned a sponsor shown on a Warren County VA250 event post. Several comments were manually hidden, and the visible discussion eventually disappeared even though Facebook still counted nine comments.

Records show that a volunteer moderator believed one comment crossed a line and recommended no engagement. County administration then directed the moderator to hide “inflammatory comments” but not delete them, because they needed to be preserved for Freedom of Information Act purposes.

Yet the comments hidden were mostly ordinary questions about the sponsor and complaints that other comments were disappearing. They were not threats, obscenity, or spam.

Facebook’s distinction between “hidden” and “deleted” does not change the public’s experience. Most residents cannot read the comment, answer it, disagree with it, or add useful information. A copy preserved for FOIA is not the same as a public conversation left intact.

This is the third county-affiliated account I have found with concerns about hidden criticism, blocked residents, disabled commenting, or restricted public participation.

I first raised the broader issue publicly at an April 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting after finding that criticism had been removed, residents had been blocked, and commenting had been disabled on two county-affiliated accounts. After learning that Warren County uses ArchiveSocial, I identified 14 hidden reviews or recommendations on a single account before public commenting was turned off. On another account, comments were removed and turned off, but the account’s contents had never been archived.

I have not reviewed the county’s remaining accounts, and I am not claiming they all have problems. Three accounts showing similar concerns are enough to justify a countywide review.

This need not create a new bureaucracy. Warren County already uses ArchiveSocial, which preserves records identifying hidden comments and blocked accounts. That should make the review of archived accounts practical. The county should also identify any official or county-affiliated accounts missing from the archive.

Residents should not have to pay for account-by-account FOIA searches to learn what disappeared and why.

The county said it had no records documenting the individual reasons or rules used for the hidden comments and blocked accounts. The only countywide social media policy produced in response to my FOIA request was labeled “DRAFT.” That draft had been discussed publicly at an August 2024 Board of Supervisors work session, yet it was still labeled “DRAFT” when released nearly two years later.

I raised this as a policy and training problem, not a reason to blame one person. The Board Chair said staff would be asked for the county’s policy and legal counsel would review it. I appreciate that response.

Now the county should act.

First, inventory every official and county-affiliated social media account, verify who controls it, and ensure it is properly archived.

Second, review available records of hidden or deleted comments, replies, reviews, recommendations, and posts, as well as blocked or restricted accounts. Each action should be tested against a clear rule applied equally to every viewpoint. Where no valid basis exists, restore the content where technically possible and unblock the account.

Third, adopt and publish a countywide social media policy covering departments, boards, committees, events, special projects, volunteers, contractors, and anyone managing a county account. Require a brief record whenever content is hidden or deleted or an account is blocked or restricted. A simple log showing what happened, when, by whom, and under which rule is enough.

Finally, train every employee, volunteer, or contractor before granting that person authority to hide content or block users on a government account. Training should cover First Amendment protections, viewpoint-neutral moderation, and public-records duties.

This is not an attack on one person. It is a request for a fair, consistent system that protects residents and the people entrusted with county pages.

Warren County already has the archiving tools needed to review these concerns. A countywide review, a formally adopted policy, simple moderation records, and basic training would go a long way toward protecting both public participation and the people tasked with managing these pages.

Public trust grows when the county government applies the same clear rules to every page and every viewpoint.

Lewis Moten
North River Resident
Warren County, VA

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The Royal Examiner has not independently verified the statements and claims presented in the letters. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish diverse opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value our readers’ engagement and encourage open, constructive discussions on a variety of topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.