Through the authors use of evidence, we can see that harassment on twitter has gone on for years. From the time it first started up going into 2014 without proper interference, which has lead to many big names leaving the site for their own wellbeing.

Because twitters "leader" has no experience with racism and sexism, he has no logical responses for the tweets many users have received with threats and slurs. As a leader of rising company, he should have been able to figure it out because that's what being a leader consists of.

Because of its power, no one can truly stop Facebook. The use of pathos within this paragraph gives the readers a feeling of anger, why should people like Mark Zuckerberg get away with things like this and allow it to all fall under a mission statement that is not even legitimate? His continuous repetition of this statement is almost as if he is trying to hypnotize people and truly make them believe Facebook does more good than bad in the end.

Mark Zuckerberg seems to keep repeating the same things over and over about Facebooks goal and "mission" - almost as if he doesn't believe it himself. This ties back to the authors statement about missions being bogus, with the use of logos to prove that even most employees within companies that have mission statements, do not believe them to be true or even care for them.

Using both logos and pathos, the author proves how those with power will always be protected and because of how large these corporations are, they have the power to stop users from utilizing free speech, and that would only affect the general public because we do not hold the most power.

Throughout this paragraph, the authors use of pathos can envoke a feeling of anger and unfairness in the readers as celebrities and congressmen/women get an advantage in free speech because they would pay no price with the words that they say. On the other hand, the general public would have to pay a price if companies were held liable for what users said on their platforms, meaning we would lose some of our freedom of speech. It is slowly apparent that this is the case though, as apps like instagram take down posts and can even delete your account if something you posted was deemed as harmful or negative, etc.

i agree, i have personally seen reports on citizen about homeless people without probable cause. someone had just reported that a homeless person was in the area, which i found to be unnecessary being that this person did not cause any trouble to anyone - he was just there.

strong point

i don't agree with this because i do not personally think people will go around attempting to purposely find crimes to report, if anything i feel like it would be the opposite - why would people get a "rush" from finding devistating information?

Gans and Mann use a contradiction while discussing a serious topic in order to provide a counterargument about surveillance. Though being watched seems creepy and invasive at first thought, it has proved itself to be beneficial in situations where we may be at risk, like at a beach, or even in a public area where anything can happen. Without these positive types of surveillance, people could drown at beaches, get stabbed in public and there would be little to no knowledge on the situations besides what bystanders can claim that they saw.

Statt appeals to the emotions of the audience by showing that something as simple as downloading an app for the safety of yourself and others could lead to your personal information being found easily and tied back to you. An app meant to only use your bluetooth signals, was actually tracking people through satellite location data without their knowledge. This appeals to the emotions of an audience because this information is private and users were not informed prior to downloading this app that their private information would not only be collected, but eventually shared.