It’s Time To Suspend Donald Trump From Twitter
medium.com
medium.com
No he didn't. He expressed an opinion, but no, he didn't incite others to attack anyone. Sorry, Ellen.
"Trump is also using Twitter to avoid accountability with the press"
Nobody needs to be accountable to the press, whether you like it or not. That's not how the system works. He's allowed to tell his side of the story as well if the press doesn't want to report it.
"Shouldn’t people with millions of angry followers be held to a higher standard? Indeed, as a blue-check verified user, Trump gets extra privileges, including timeline and user filters."
in that case, we have a lot of musicians that will also be held to higher standards.
I also found it sort of interesting that they disabled comments on this article. It's as if they want to do the same thing that they're accusing Trump of doing - one way discourse.
John Lewis is a hero, but someone in his position calling the president illegitimate is irresponsible and destructive. You can't ignore all the horrific things trump says and does, but bottom line is he won the election.
In their case, it was considered (or treated like) a moral duty to question the legitimacy of a sitting President... Why is it suddenly wrong for the other side to do the same?
And Trump has the right to criticize Lewis back.
People who are trying to censor Trump are acting like Fascists.
Ellen, you're not only wrong about censorship which shouldve been proven to you-- but you're not making the right case. Trump potentially shouldn't have Twitter. however, the internet isn't going to stop being offensive, nor is Trump the only offensive person on the internet.
The most core tenet of America is freedom of belief. Like Henry, I think I think Pao is wrong and what she says is horribly damaging because it notmalizes censorship much as the "fake news/only trust us" meme; BUT I would spend my lifetime fighting for her right to say it.
The idea of a platform for new ideas, open conversations, and positive interactions on a global scale was powerful and compelling
She praises new ideas and openness of conversation, then tells Twitter to ban the US President because she disagrees with him.
The author has chosen not to show responses on this story
What a surprise.
That's fine. Not all conversations have to be open. Twitter can go ahead and eliminate their users who don't fit their preferred political profile, it's their platform. Someone will just set up a competitor with different policies.
I suppose Trump's supporters would regard at least some of his interactions as positive.
Only if you're compelled to censor away any comments you don't approve.
The author certainly wouldn't like it if his account was banned because someone convinced a moderator his words were poison.
Take a step back.
For example, the sentence, "Pat has a flower. Their flower smells good, " doesn't sound right because "their" is plural. "Pat has a flower. Its flower smells good, " doesn't sound right either because "its" is reserved for things and not people.
Also, the dictionary isn't a good source for grammar. It contains definitions of words, proper or not, like "ain't" and "irregardless."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?utm_...
Even if it did, I suspect either the US or the UK would reject the country that wrote it.
>They with a singular antecedent has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians.
I was being a traditional grammarian. "John has a flower. Their flower smells good," sounds as incorrect to me as, "John ain't got no flowers." For me, the more important the point I'm trying to make the more grammatically correct I try to be.
Of course the spoken word is completely different. I think a message can get a lot of additional value misusing the language.
Maybe I should just realize, "ain't nobody got time for that."
But try it with "Someone has a flower. Their flower smells good." Sounds right to me.
There's no need to replace one with the other everywhere. For example, why would you use "ain't" if you are trying to sound formal and a suitable alternative exists? Just say "No one has time for that."
I think it is a strawman argument to equate "there is an alternative word that can be used" (like they or ain't) with "one must use the alternative exclusively" (see how "one" was chosen over "they" in that sentence?)
Of course, my quote is starting a sentence with a preposition, which is also poor form.
>Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself.
The bar of what is considered « abusive » is becoming very, very low. It seems the simple act of criticizing the public actions of an individual is enough for one to become an « abuser ».
When will they learn: Don't insult Trump and Trump won't insult back. It's that simple. If you're going to dish it out, you better be ready to receive it too.
Both have more to gain than loose by pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that's what they do consciously and subconsciously the whole day.
There is 10 years of training data out there, which should cover everything most politicians and journalists are ever capable of coming up with.
Plus the quality of political expression imho on these platforms has gotten so low in terms of signal to noise that I don't think it would be a great loss to society.
The speed and reach of a message on social media today is unprecedented. Such platforms need ways to retard the flow of ignorance. That would really be the goal. And there is enough evidence to show that journalists and politicians are benefiting the most from such flows.