An inquiry to Twitter management

December 5, 2014 By Hannah Wallen 52 Comments

In the past few months I’ve seen some discussion on the exploitation of vulnerable aspects of Twitter’s rules by social justice warriors to silence political dissent by using bots to mass-block or mass-report so dissenters’ accounts would be suspended. On October 29, I emailed press@twitter.com with questions, explaining my intent behind the request. I wanted to be upfront about the fact that this was for an article to ensure that their reply would consist of information they wanted known. My email:

Recent trends in some groups’ tweets have included referencing the option included in the “block or report” menu to report another user for content that is “Generally offensive, disrespectful or in disagreement with my opinion.” Some users are touting that option as a means to silence political dissent. This sounded unlike a social site policy, and led me to look further into the reporting options.

Further investigation has only led to more questions, including questions about other options for reporting. The help bubble for that option says “Twitter does not screen content and does not remove potentially offensive content unless such content is in violation of the Twitter Rules and Terms of Service,” so I have read those.

Some of the twitter rules have wording which could be subject to broad interpretation and potential abuse. I’m writing to request clarification, as I am considering an article. My current focus is communication, harassment, censorship, and how twitter’s rules affect engagement between users in relation to political and other potentially controversial discussions. Any information I receive in response to these questions will contribute to that article.

For instance, listed under “targeted abuse” are

if the sole purpose of your account is to send abusive messages to others;

and

if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats

What factors determine if the sole purpose of an account is to send abusive messages to others?

Is disagreement with others’ opinion considered an abusive message, and if so does that mean engaging in debate by replying to publicly made statements of opinion with counterarguments is now considered abuse?

If not, what is the specific reason for including “in disagreement with my opinion” in the harassment reporting options?

I am assuming that tweets without @user mentions are not considered “targeted” because they do not involve intentional contact and users can block feed they do not want to see. Is this correct?

Does “targeted abuse” include @user mentions without abusive language, but which contain a dissenting counterargument to something the user has said? (eg. I disagree with @twitteruser’s stated opinion in LinkToPublication because reason #politicalorsocialconcept or @twitteruser I disagree with what you said.) If so, is that a blanket rule or does the behavior have to be repeated or continue after the user engaging in it has received some variation of “stop talking to me” before it is considered to be in violation?

Does the tone of a tweet change whether it is considered abusive, and if so what is the criteria for that? (“I disagree with what you said” vs a similar line containing expletives vs a line containing slurs or the suggestion that the user deserves to suffer violence because of his opinion.)

Under the Spam heading are the following criteria:

If you have followed and/or unfollowed large amounts of users in a short time period, particularly by automated means (aggressive following or follower churn);

When a political or social movement forms on twitter, users often follow each other so that posts about their specific pet issue will show up in their feed. Is it a goal of twitter to prevent this, or does following require automated means in order to be considered a violation?

If your updates consist mainly of links, and not personal updates;

Many users post links to news stories, videos, and memes related to hashtags created for issues and concepts that have meaning to them. Very often these are, to the user, personal updates because they are new information about the issue or concept. Will users whose personal updates usually include links to information be considered spammers?

If a large number of people are blocking you;

If a large number of spam complaints have been filed against you;

This looks like it could be used by ideological groups to silence popular or very vocal users whose updates contain statements of opinion to which they are opposed, by banding together to all block and/or report the same person, thereby putting him or her in violation. What is twitter’s administration doing to counter potential abuse of these rules?

If you post multiple unrelated updates to a topic using #, trending or popular topic, or promoted trend;

There are Twitter users currently interpreting this to mean that dissenting views to a hashtag’s political outlook and criticism of the belief or assertion behind a hashtag can be considered spam if it is posted to the hashtag. For example, posting an opposing viewpoint with a political hashtag can offend the readers of the hashtag, but it’s a discussion attempt. Is it considered spam even if it is not belligerent or threatening?

Randomly or aggressively following, favoriting or Retweeting Tweets;

This line is hard to interpret. Can you please give a more detailed explanation of what it means? How does twitter determine when following, favoriting, and retweeting are random or aggressive, and when doing those things is acceptable?

Finally, do you have a policy in place to deal with habitual, vexatious false flagging (users repeatedly reporting content which does not violate rules or terms of service in an attempt to silence speech they disapprove or people they dislike)? This is a behavior I’ve seen on other social networking sites where administrators have written and posted broadly interpretable policy without stipulating that false exploitation of it would also lead to discipline. What is Twitter doing to prevent users from banding together to engage in this type of harassment, and how do you differentiate between a user engaging in this and a user who spots or experiences and reports a lot of genuine violations?

If you provide me with a statement on the overall goal of Twitter’s rules and guidelines as they relate to discussion on the site, I will include that in the article.

If you have any questions for me, please let me know, and I’ll be happy to clarify anything that has not come across clearly. Thank you in advance for taking the time to address these questions. I hope to produce an article that will bring about better understanding of Twitter’s rules and their relationship to the many discussions among users of the site.

To date, I have not heard back. I cannot be sure if this is simply due to their staff for handling press requests being small and unable to keep up or if they are avoiding answering the questions. If it is the latter, it could be because now that they’ve realized there are holes in their policy, they want to fix them before replying. It could also be due to a desire to leave those holes in place without having to answer for them. The only way to know would be to hear back from Twitter, and that is largely out of my control.

To try to get Twitter to answer my questions, I’ve tweeted @support.

.@support Do you condone censorship via blockbot/false-flag? http://t.co/1AbzpKVn7W http://t.co/ahZwSTShJA https://t.co/G30RG3RrNr

— Hannah Wallen (@Oneiorosgrip) November 22, 2014

The links go to the original posting of this on Breaking the Glasses, the Atheism+ blockbot list, and the github page for the GGautoblocker, which is up to nearly 10,000 accounts (including @WRCorg and at first, @KFC) blocked for being even remotely associated with #gamergate. According to the github talk, they can’t block Christina Hoff Sommers or Adam Baldwin without slowing down the list’s functioning. Apparently having a ton of followers makes a difference.

The GGautoblocker block list has its own personal Twitter account under its own name. If you want to find out if you’re on it, according to a link posted in that account, a list of blocked users, broken down into chunks of 500 accounts, is here.

I’m all for Twitter users having the choice to block in order to avoid unwanted contact and conflict. That’s everyone’s right. However, both bots appear to be in violation of the terms of service in that bots are forbidden, and these can easily be employed in the manner I’ve described in the letter to shut down accounts over political disagreement. The GGautoblocker is being actively used as a tool of attempted (and failed) intimidation, as users not associated with #gamergate who find themselves on it are being told by #gamergate’s opponents who they should or should not follow and who they should or should not allow to follow them.

If Twitter condones this use of blockbots, that is a clear demonstration that their rule system is not about preventing abuse but about facilitating a censorship effort. It’s a question that, if news@twitter will not answer, the @support staff should. The other question is: How many users are going to have to ask before Twitter’s staff will pay attention to the problem?

About the Author
Latest Articles

About Hannah Wallen

Hannah Wallen (aka Della Burton) became an MRA after weathering the direct impact of feminist advocacy on her family for years. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. She also writes and comments on reddit.com as oneiorosgrip.

Main Website

The importance of Georgia’s House Bill 51 - February 16, 2017
The primary victim of “equality” is not your daughter - February 20, 2016
Title IX abuse in university athletic programs - December 23, 2015
War on victims of female perpetrators goes back to college - December 14, 2015
Suffragettes still can’t save feminism - September 14, 2015

View All Posts

Gregg Braddoch

Twitter doesn’t care about any of this stuff as long as they make money. Same goes for facebook.
- TefExpat
  
  But feminists want it to be about siding with their beliefs and then saying that it is for PR purposes
  - Graham Strouse
    
    The thing is the people who run the show (at least in places where money is the main concern) are rarely True Believers. They’re usually in it for the money. If the bottom lines starts to crater they’ll ditch their own foot soldiers in an eye-blink.
- Graham Strouse
  
  True. but if this sort of thing becomes more mainstream it will start hurting their bottom line.
TefExpat

Feminists are notorious for censoring dissent on their forums. That to them is normal. In a place where they can’t do that, they lose their shit. Thus WAM and all the “do this or we will shame you publicly” tropes.
- Jack Strawb
  
  Which is why some of the censorship here troubles me. I suppose it’s necessary, as otherwise a nascent movement just getting up steam would spend much of its time refuting and debunking the same old nonsense. Still, I look forward to when our numbers are stronger and the truth is more accepted and doesn’t have to be re-litigated in every comment section to every article.
TefExpat

Question: Rape Culture Apologists are the majority. How to turn that around?

Feminist answer: Well, in part by calling it out, and deconstructing rape apologia for the rank mendacity that it is. Like what I’m doing here. I think we need to look at the people who do public disbelieving, under the auspices of “critical thinking,” and debunk what they’re actually saying and doing, and tell them, “I see you.”
— Melissa McEwan

So you can see the pattern of propaganda in real time. The Twitter matter is merely part of that pattern. Swaying the public to their world view is a HUGE goal of feminism.
- Reason
  
  Yup, don’t want none dat “critical thinking” to warp MY opinin’!
- Jack Strawb
  
  They’re going to have a damnably difficult time debunking actual critical thinking with mere opinion, no?
  
  It’s astonishing in its way, though. McEwan and her ilk do, somehow, believe that’s possible. I didn’t quite get the assault on reason when feminism first began that line of attack. I live an evidence-based life so it simply didn’t make sense to me. When reasoned analysis, though, disproves everything contemporary feminism holds dear, what choice does feminist theory have except to attempt an end run around logic, facts, and evidence?
  
  I’ve already seen it at work in comments section to the UVA rape hoax as reported by Rolling Stone. You see, they FEEL it to be true, so the lack of actual evidence that there is an epidemic of rape on college campuses is irrelevant. This reminds us there is a segment of feminism absolutely immune to evidence and reason, and that debate is useful only in how it reaches bystanders and fencesitters.
  - Graham Strouse
    
    Rolling Stone is really wiping, ah…egg whit of it’s face here. Shall we call it egg white?. Yes, let’s call it egg white. 😉 RS has done some really superb investigative journalism over the years and until recently they had maintained higher levels of editorial integrity than most of the big dailies and the big news programs. But they’ve lost some of their best reporters over the last couple years though and it shows. WaPo really ripped them a new one over the UVa case & rightly so.
- Octavian
  
  “Public disbelieving” is rape apology, ha. Some twit at Jezebel called a writer for Reason.com an idiot for ‘thinking critically’ about the UVA rape claim.. which then turned out to be unfounded.
  
  To her credit, at least the Jezebelite (name I don’t recall) apologized for her error, which is rare for feminists, who usually use the “well, if he/they didn’t raper her, they probably still did something to deserve it anyway, so no harm no foul” excuse.
  
  Once upon a time, it was considered logical to disbelieve a claim that was not very believable. Nowadays, a woman can claim to have been raped by two dragons and an elf while visiting Narnia and we’re not a allowed to withhold belief. Mission accomplished I guess.
Mordridakon

The top brass at Twitter are in league with SJWs including Anita Sarkessian. They know their harassment tools are being used to censor people, they just don’t care. Twitter is no longer a platform to share free thought, it is now a platform to share the SJW agenda. In essence, twitter is no longer a neutral party in this, no longer just a facilitator.
I guarantee this will spread from #gamergate to every topic of liberal concern, including climate science. Conservatives, they’re coming for you next!
- Jack Strawb
  
  Let’s stop turning this into a left versus right issue. Have you so quickly forgotten the shouts of “treason!” from the right at those who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq in an attempt to censor and silence them?
  
  One of the fastest ways to get the MRM to splinter will be to bring partisan divisions into it. Feminism kidnapped the progressive movement in the 1990s the same way the far right kidnapped authentic conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s. Do we really want partisan bickering dividing men in 2014?
  - driversuz
    
    Amen!
  - Graham Strouse
    
    Amen from me to. One of the reasons why we’ve done as well as we have the last couple years is that we’ve stuck to our core issues and avoided splitting into factions.
- Graham Strouse
  
  It just puzzles me as to why. I generally assume most people are bastards but I would expect that they would be bastards who like to make a profit.
politicalcynic

I’ve posted several tweets to @twitter and @support asking similar questions. I have yet to receive any reply. The lack of response, while threats from the more “ideologically acceptable” side of the fence are never addressed (even when reported) stands at this point as evidence that Twitter may be silencing individuals based solely on whether @twitter and SJWs approve of what is said, rather than based on a uniform application of their TOS.
- Malcolm H. Johnston
  
  They are just ignoring you because you are a bad, bad man. Social Justice Warriors told them so.
  - Hannah Wallen
    
    I guess I must be a bad man, too. They’ve gotten 2 emails and a tweet from me and have yet to respond.
    - Malcolm H. Johnston
      
      You’re the worst man of them all Hannah.
    - Graham Strouse
      
      Better be careful, Hannah. You keep sending them unwanted messages and they’ll have you arrested for stalking. 😉
8888rams .

Twitter have yet to make a profit, and less likely to with the current censorship. They are desperate for success, kinda sad if were honest.
- Isaac T. Quill
  
  Just as there was a massive culling when the Dot Com Bubble went pop in March 2000, the there is a social media bubble which has managed to bet too big to fail. Twitter is in the top ten of global domains for Net Traffic. That is likely to shift considerable in the next ten years as English stops being the dominant language for web access to be replaced by Mandarin and Spanish.
  
  Those are the two major language areas globally for Feminist Net Censorship of the present and future. Don’t forget that the present Brat Pack Feminism is an English Language Phenomenon, driven by 1st world considerations and US centric Bloggerati Bias. It is primarily racist with the Bloggerati believing that sitting with their laptop at starbucks and bitching over a hashtag is global feminism and gives them significance. Just think who’s names will be recorded as significant and with a trace in history in 100 years? The only one that comes to mind in Marcotte, and that is as an example of Cyber Lynch Mob Leader and an early example of the Psychological Aberration know as
  - Graham Strouse
    
    English is still likely to be the dominant language for some time to come. There are too many variations of Chinese and the language is structurally chaotic to make it tenable–it’s simply too difficult for most non-native speakers. There’s a reason why the Chinese government has been investing very heavily in recruiting English teachers. Spanish isn’t spoken all that much outside the Americas, although it is a very elegant language. English is likely to be the lingua franca for some time to come. That’s not Twitter’s weakness. Twitter is widely used but it’s still somewhat niche & unlike FB, which invests very heavily in making itself popular and accessible to the 18-49 demographic, and youtube, which is used by, well, almost everyone, Twitter is still somewhat niche. It doesn’t really make much money as far as I know & if it becomes too much of a hassle it would not be that technically difficult for a rival to code a similar but less bitchy service.
    - Isaac T. Quill
      
      Any service that Auto Bans Amanda Marcotte gets my vote!
Reason

Time to boycott such misandry-enabling twits. If you have a company that advertises, block the ads from appearing on Twitter, let them know why. If you see ads on Twitter, boycott the product and tell the company why. Think the impact is too low? Actually, even small dips in revenue effect competitiveness in the market, and more importantly, hit the shares, thus directors’ salaries. Press releases revealing the nature and purpose of such a boycott would force companies to make public choices.
- John Narayan
  
  Indeed, hit them where it hurt$ the mo$t.
  - Hannah Wallen
    
    It has been working for #gamergate with numerous sites. Of course, that’s probably also why WAM was called in; because the targeted boycotts and email campaigns have had an impact which SJWs don’t like.
    - Graham Strouse
      
      Twitter’s not as vulnerable, as, say, the gaming journalism industry, but it’s a lot more replaceable than, say, Facbook or Youtube. It’s not quite as ubiqutious & it would be a lot easier from a coding point-of-view to create a similar but alternative service. If the blockbot nonsense continues to alienate people they could be looking at serious revenue losses which another service could exploit.
John Narayan

Twitter Crow, Jim Crows sister.
Isaac T. Quill

Twitter do not care – they are just happy to go along with the Feminist CRoss SJW zeitgeist. Only when it causes them corporate embarrassment and financial loss (through legal costs) will they take act. That have already taken notice and concluded their bread is buttered to their liking.

Don’t forget, Twitter has been colluding with WAM over bot usage for some time. Blockbot anyone?
- Hannah Wallen
  
  That is why I ended up writing about this. If twitter’s admins have determined that being blocked by a lot of people is reason to suspend an account, but they allow blockbots to which users can subscribe which would allow the bots’ administrators to target site users they didn’t like for mass-block, they’re not combating abuse but facilitating it.
  - Isaac T. Quill
    
    Wow – there is no chance that any feminist twitterati would figure out how to abuse systems, is there?
    
    Odd how some of the most Prolific Twitterati in recent months have vanished from their positions of Doyens of “I’m Being Abused and I need support and everyone should block anyone I label as Troll… or anyone I happen to disagree with.”.
    
    The pattern of multiple accounts, my own included being blocked and me having to ask repeatedly for an explanation has led to no blocks and abusive accounts vanishing. The Bot is the next best excuse for them – The Idiot bot did the blocking and any idiot programmer (especially a female) is not held to account … or if they are, it’s misogyny and her being beaten up with logic, reason and best practice by nasty men…. who are all gamers!
NotoriousPAT

” in disagreement with my opinion”??? What the…?
- Hannah Wallen
  
  Yeah, that’s actually a very common reason why feminists and other SJWs flag comments in discussions on social sites. Whenever they do not have a counterpoint to offer, they report the person for abuse instead.
DukeLax

Hannah… great hands on activism here. Just out of curiosity…are you a member of the “Honey Badgers brigade”…..or any of the WAF ( women against feminism) groups??? If not i believe you would be a great addition to help some of these groups get some traction!!
- Hannah Wallen
  
  Yes, I’m a regular on honey badger radio and the honey badger brigade blog, Women Against Feminism and WAFGamers. I just am unable to do a lot on facebook right now due to hardware issues, at least until we get my new system up and running this weekend.
  - Jack Strawb
    
    Many thanks for all your good work, Hannah. I’m a big fan of your writing.
    - Hannah Wallen
      
      Thank you 🙂
      - Jack Strawb
        
        My pleasure! Are you working on a book, or a collection of essays…?
- Dan Slezak
  
  I have really good speakers on my computer, not that built in shit. I got something you plug in. Ill down load something and listen too it, while I am doing something else around the house. Most of the MHRM stuff that has audio is not really a video. Girl Writes What is a perfect example. All she’s doing is talking into her computer from her kitchen. One just needs too listen, not watch. BarBar is another one. One can literally surround themselves in the MHRM 24/7. And I think this is why we know more about feminism and its history than they do.
  
  I mention this too you as a fellow AVFM reader. Hannah is still kind of new around here, I believe a year? She’s a wonderful writer and a great asset, were lucky too have her. Get yourself a good pair of speakers, not that 20$ crap, expect too pay twice that. I mean no disrespect. The HoneyBadgers have their own website.
  
  http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/
  
  AVFM just said they had tech. difficulties with Blog talk, but IMO 365 is way worse.
RSDavies

You’re free to speak your mind my friend

As long as you agree with me

Don’t criticize the mother land

Or those who shape your destiny

‘Cause if you do

You’ll lose your job your mind and all the friends you knew

We’ll send out all our boys in blue

They’ll find a way to silence you

Steppenwolf – The Ostrich
TPH

Twitter will only address the political censorship/stifling of free speech when it impacts their image and profits.
MGTOW-man

Your questions are valid. However, they will not answer. It is clear they are now in lock-step with truth haters, the over sensitive, and other censorious entities.

This is the beginning of their sneaky method of making censorship palatable in a society that is supposed to strongly favor free speech. But as we are finding out, free speech is for women only in this context. Men (and the women who love them), unless they agree, will have their free speech eliminated.

But of course, only feminists have the slightest inkling of what equality is. The rest of us are in the way.

Weak men will allow this hatred to go unchecked.
- Jack Strawb
  
  “This is the beginning of their sneaky method of making censorship
  palatable in a society that is supposed to strongly favor free speech.”
  
  The US has a long history of warring over and suppressing speech. This is just the latest round. It will work, too, unless we are very, very vigilant.
  - MGTOW-man
    
    “It will work, too, unless we are very, very vigilant.”
    
    Yep! I am fearful that if our movement doesn’t go ahead and secure comfortable involvement in alternative ways to fight beside this net, the fembots will eliminate our ability to not be isolated. Being isolated is just what they want so they can help project the false and ridiculous image that we are cave-dwelling neck-beards that can’t get laid and who hate women, thus want women to lose all they have “gained” (matter of perspective).
    
    Complete rubbish of course. They just resent our push to make them accept accountability, responsibility, and equal sacrifices….which entails them NOT getting their way all the time as they have grown accustomed due to weakened men caving in on virtually every single thing they whine about. They also resent an averted plan for their supremacy.
    
    One by one they are eliminating our ability to get our messages out there, in which we know many, many average people out there will positively resonate with the commonsense things we say.
    
    I predict they will strike in a big way to eliminate almost all or ALL of how we fight now. They will do this before most average men out there even learn there is a men’s movement—in which if they knew, at least some of them would begin to stand up for men and boys’ rights and lives. Many of the men out there will happily refuse to be pushed over the proverbial cliff that Paul Elam spoke of to me because they will happily just jump for the women instead—whatever they have been trained to believe is manly and manhood-accomplishing that revolves around women.
    
    Our movement is relying too much on freedom of speech. I think it is a mistake and have offered my support at trying to get more of us on the actual streets. I have received one nod to date, an important one, but still shy of action because I do not think it will be wise to protest on the streets with me being the only one to participate.
    
    Look for this new Supreme court “Threat Language” case (with a decision soon to be announced) to be the thing that feminists latch on to so they can start their final teeth-sinking into our jugulars. All they have to do is stretch the law into something that “threatens them”, and it is over. Exaggeration and overreaction is their forte. We had better expect the worse and prepare diligently.
    - Jack Strawb
      
      “Being isolated is just what they want so they can help project the false
      and ridiculous image that we are cave-dwelling neck-beards that can’t
      get laid and who hate women, thus want women to lose all they have
      “gained” (matter of perspective).”
      
      It’s certainly the case that feminists have been winning the fight over reputation. I’ve never heard anyone at all prominent in the MRM arguing for anything other than equality, and I’ve never heard a prominent feminist actually arguing FOR equality; nonetheless in the public mind feminism is associated far more often than the MRM is in the fight for equality.
      
      It’s astonishing, really, and speaks to the power of owning the means and methods of communication.
      
      “One by one they are eliminating our ability to get our messages out
      there, in which we know many, many average people out there will
      positively resonate with the commonsense things we say.”
      
      Couldn’t agree more. It’s why our simple statements of fact are almost invariably met with vicious, personal attacks. They have to slay the messenger before the message slays them.
      
      “I predict they will strike in a big way to eliminate almost all or ALL of how we fight now.”
      
      I think that’s why we’re seeing increasingly desperate attempts at blanket censorship. They know or at least intuit they can’t win an actual war of ideas.
      - MGTOW-man
        
        Oh shoot! You would ask. And I don’t blame you. Being prepared like you are trying to be is one of our strong points as truth crusaders. However, I am unprepared at this time. I will search this and get back to you.
        
        In the meantime, here is what I know. A divorced man used facebook( I think) to complain about his ex. He used threatening language that he compared to the same measure as lyrics in rock songs, claiming his words were no more threatening than what many others in our societies do. However, she says she ” feared for her life”, likely knowing that he was only venting as he described it. The Supreme Court has taken this to decide if his actions are protected under freedom of expression. A decision is expected soon.
        
        I’ll learn more; thanks for keeping me on my toes.
      - Jack Strawb
        
        Thanks very much for clarifying, and for the case info.
        
        I loathe laws that depend on the feelings of an accuser or complainant. I’m not thrilled, either, by the “reasonable man” standard, although I get that there isn’t much alternative.
        
        As an aside it’s also a case where the ACLU has filed a brief on behalf of the accused in Elonis v US. One of the many reasons I don’t think either end of the political spectrum should be dismissed in the fight for men’s rights. Given how many times it has worked to aid less popular and even downright unpopular causes I’m guessing the ACLU will eventually be a real ally of the MRM.
      - MGTOW-man
        
        I hope you are correct about the ACLU.
Jack Strawb

Speaking of Twitter and censorship,

“Twitter Under Pressure To Ban Blogger Who Posted Alleged UVA Rape Victim’s Name”

Apparently we’re required to protect the anonymity even of people who appear to be making false accusations. I’ll be interested to see the outcome of this. The blogger has a sorry reputation, but if we only protect the angels our voices won’t reach very far.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/12/09/3601046/twitter-uva-rape-victim/
- Hannah Wallen
  
  I am not surprised. This is how feminists and other social justice ideologues respond to speech they don’t like – they can’t debate so they try to silence.

An inquiry to Twitter management

About Hannah Wallen

Blogroll

Videoroll

Sponsored links

About Hannah Wallen

Share this:

Blogroll

Videoroll