Fenced in by an abiding commitment to free speech above all else and a unique product that makes moderation difficult and trolling almost effortless,
There is freedom of speech on twitter which makes "almost effortless" for trolls to troll.
9 Matching Annotations
- Oct 2021
-
www.buzzfeednews.com www.buzzfeednews.com
-
-
More than eight years after Waldman’s ordeal, harassment on Twitter is rampant — so much so that it has become a primary destination for trolls and hate groups. So much so that its CEO declared, “We suck at dealing with abuse and trolls on the platform and we've sucked at it for years.” So much so that numerous high-profile users have quit the service, citing it as an unsafe space.
Twitter became a very toxic platform after their company didn't do anything to those who spread hate on the app, even the CEO of the company admitted to not dealing with the trolls.
-
allowed abuse and harassment to continue to grow as a chronic problem and perpetual secondary internal priority
The author is using pathos, appeal to emotion, making the audience feel empathy for the victims of cyber bullying.
-
Just this summer, actor Leslie Jones was driven off Twitter after a barrage of racist comments and death threats, only to return after a personal reassurance from Dorsey himself. Last week, Normani Kordei of the pop group Fifth Harmony also stepped away from the service after suffering years of “horrific and racially charged” tweets. Despite its integral role in popular culture and in social justice initiatives from the Arab Spring to Black Lives Matter, Twitter is as infamous today for being as toxic as it is famous for being revolutionary.
Twitter became so toxic that so many celebrities took down their accounts because of hate comments, meaning trolls freely go and comment anything on anyones posts.
-
-
www.inquirer.com www.inquirer.com
-
While we think that we are seeking pleasure from screen time, it’s actually making us depressed. Studies have linked the use of constant swiping on our phones and tablets to anxiety, poor sleep quality, inattention, and depression.
Her evidence to support her claim.
-
From my professional perspective, crime-tracking apps can be completely devastating to one’s mental health
Her reason for her claim.
-
As a mental health professional and as a Black woman living in a city that is home to hundreds of thousands of people of color, I do not support crime-tracking apps.
Her claim is, she does not support crime tracking apps.
-
-
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com
-
The scattershot approach has raised concerns about the long-term effects this kind of software could have for human rights and privacy protections. It’s still not clear how long the apps will remain in active use, which government bodies might regulate them, and whether states will keep them around as surveillance tools well into the future
The author is making an emotional appeal by telling the reader how the app can have "long-term effects" and that how it is violating human rights and privacy protections, it can be very dangerous just image someone having all the information about you, even if it is the government it is never really 100% safe. Even though the app was mainly put into action to stop the Coronavirus from spreading it is still not safe, even making it a televised game, but someone's privacy protections is not a game it can lead to someone being hurt.
-
-
theconversation.com theconversation.com
-
It turned out the police shot the wrong person (he looked similar to a suspect they were looking for). It was a case of mistaken identity. After the shooting, the police seized the four recordings of the event and reported that all were blank, even though transit officials had already viewed the shooting.
The author is trying to prove their point by giving an example of a "Loss of integrity" Police shot and killed an innocent men named Jean Charles but was able to get away with it because they took the camera recordings and said "they were blank" If Jean Charles had a camera on him and was recording the whole event or even a passerby's had any cameras recording that would be an evidence against the police and would prove they are not innocent. Cameras are there to maintain public safety but as it is said in the article it is "hypocrisy" they can record us without our permission but why can't we? it is a "one-sided preservation of memory" The person who has the recordings can easily use it to their own advantage like the how the police did. In addition cameras might be useful at times it has a bad side as well.
-