The Comment Beneath the Official Post

As a communications officer, Stefan managed the town council's social media page. Most comments concerned missed collections and broken streetlights. One afternoon, a resident posted a sharply worded complaint about the mayor's travel expenses. The mayor's assistant asked Stefan to delete it because the tone was disrespectful and the post was attracting attention.

Stefan checked the page rules. They prohibited threats, personal contact details and repeated advertising, but not criticism. The comment contained an incorrect figure, yet the travel expense itself was real. Removing the whole complaint would also remove a question the council could answer. He drafted a reply linking the relevant amount to the published accounts, then showed it to his manager.

While they discussed it, the resident added a second comment containing the assistant's private phone number. This clearly broke the rules. Stefan saved an internal record, removed only that comment and explained the reason publicly. The assistant felt that he was splitting hairs. Stefan replied that a rule broad enough to protect her privacy should not automatically become a rule protecting officials from uncomfortable questions.

The resident corrected the figure but refused to soften his language. Stefan left the original complaint visible. By evening, the thread had become boring: several people argued over which budget column contained the expense. He regarded that as a reasonable outcome, although nobody thanked him for it. Before leaving, he updated the moderation log so the next officer would understand both actions, rather than inherit an unexplained deletion and a rumour about who had demanded it.