A critical analysis of Michael Coren's article "Why Twitter wants you to hate."

Answer:

In this article "Why Twitter Wants You To Hate" Michael Coren (2019). Writes making emotional appeals through examples in religion, politics and social life. Twitter can be used as a place to tear others down or a place for people to connect. The first significant example of Coren utilizing pathos comes in the opening paragraph with his description of a conservative Catholic critic implying he was a pedophile.

Coren writes: "I'll never forget what he wrote back: 'This is Twitter. You asked for it.'" (para. 1). It evokes emotion by using an example of an accusation that, if true, would lead to serious defamation and criminal charges but is just commonplace on Twitter, according to the author.

It is equally important how celebrities use social media, like Twitter, to relate to their fans, share new music, and use the platform to promote causes that are important to them among their fanbase. 

If celebrities are quitting—or avoiding—Twitter because of the barrage of hate from trolls, is the platform's role in creating and advancing connections within the creative sphere coming to an end?

Twitter explicitly prohibits any tweet that advocates for terrorism or violence against a certain group or individual. But, the platform is frustratingly vague when it comes to hate speech - not in the least, because this is perceived as a touchy freedom of expression issue in the US where Twitter is based.

Many have long debated whether or not hate speech is free speech. Should hate speech be protected with the same vigor as other forms of speech under the US Constitution?  To add, the social media savvy among us have long pointed out that controversial arguments and raging "Twitter wars" drive engagement, making it in the company's interest to encourage inflammatory conversations.

"What genuinely makes Twitter popular is the hatred," Michael Coren wrote in an op-ed for the Walrus. "For the platform to work, it needs engagement. It gets that engagement by stoking outrage." At the same time, we must admit that outrage is not always bad.

For example, take the #MeToo movement. Mounting outrage about the scope of the sexual harassment created a viral conversation, which had a ripple effect around the world. However, Twitter (aka the outrage machine) skewered many of the survivors who spoke out, maintaining the long tradition of trolling women, people of colour, queer and non-binary people with particular fervor.

Many argue that even this kind of trolling—so long as it does not specifically incite violence against a group of people or individual—should be protected under freedom of expression. If you read between the lines of Twitter's terms and conditions, it says as much.

The words "hate speech" are carefully avoided from the list of infractions that could get a Tweet deleted or an account suspended. Clearly, I believe the internet could be a platform for everyone to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression,

but online abuse, cyber-bullying, and violence assaults against basic principles of equality under international law and freedom of expression. Such abuses must be addressed urgently, but with careful attention to human rights law.