Since 2016, Facebook has become interested in election integrity here and elsewhere; the company has thirty-five thousand security specialists in total, many of whom function almost like a U.N. team of elections observers
In this line, the writer uses the metaphor to compare-U.N team who only just observes to 35,000 Facebook security specialists. Claiming that they are not doing their job and simply observing.
Bosworth argued that his memo was meant to provoke debate, not to be taken literally, but plainly it spoke to views held within the company.
Bosworth logos/logic makes sense in a way that the goal was to provoke debate and not be taken literally. However, I believe that not all are educated. Some people believe anything said in the media industry and are easily influenced. How is this fair?
Anti-vaccination activists abuse liberty by spreading medical misinformation online. Social media bullies have named and shamed even private citizens for often trivial offenses. But on balance, free speech is a great gift to American culture
The writer gives a really powerful logos statement here in these lines; especially when mentioning how anti-vaccination activists abuse liberty by spreading medical misinformation online during this in pandemic. I really like this specific example of showing the power of what it truly means to have free speech in this generation.
In fact, when they speak of Section 230 reform, understand that they are uttering the ancient argument of powerful censors throughout American history. “Free speech for me, but not for thee.”
Through the text, the writer uses credible research informations(ethos) from past but in these two last lines, I feel as if the writer got attached to it's emotion and logic to come to a conclusion of more of the writers thoughts. I say this because the writer is stating this text from individual citizen perspective.
A senior engineer who left the company before its 2013 IPO echoed Schiller’s point. “You have this opposition between defending the user’s experience and not shutting down speech all while there's this big, toxic mass of people that are abusing,” the source said. “That tension has now, I think, in the past few years, flipped on its head. It’s clear something needs to be done
This evidence of ethos from a previous senior engineer claims that the employees knows how this site creates mass toxic conflicts but refuses and defends free speech. After years of seeing this, the senior engineers believe it's time for a change because twitter has such a big influence.
2011 brought the Arab Spring and more international acclaim for Twitter as a platform for revolutionaries.
In other words, this specific move led to getting the credibility by everyone in the company of "free speech" no matter the controversial speech that was occurring.
Until we can offer more people-centered solutions on mental health and safety, I give crime-tracking apps a no, thank you.
By safety, the writer is wring to convey that due to excessive time spent on phone; our body have become numb and seeks out more information to fill this problem; leaving the alert of case on their hand to explore which is very unsafe. I completely agree with the writer because it creates a curiosity of exploring the problem yourself.
Apple and Google are still in the process of developing a more privacy-focused system for the US and other countries that would work across both Android and iOS, while some governments have simply made their own apps along separate lines.
This line confuses of me of why the government would simply separates lines with such credible companies. In a way, I see the concerned raised by this because this kind of action could keep a surveillance on it's people during all time which goes against privacy rules.