I'm 20 years out of law school, only took the one Con Law 101 class that was mandatory and got a D in it. To this day I probably couldn't tell you which amendment is which. I'll say now what I said 20 years ago as I sat in Con Law not paying attention, "I'm going to get a job doing work comp, me learning the Constitution would be about as relevant as me learning Swahili."

I think that is quite a stretch. I doubt most of the people she blocks would otherwise be fans and if they hate her enough to get upset about being blocked by her they still probably find a way to see her content.

The problem is, and you can see it in this thread, is that valid criticism often gets drowned out by attacks on her physical characteristics and her personally. She's not getting value if her twitter comments are basically Score Is Doomed types teaching her valuable profanity laced lessons about how horrible she is.

It isn't about white knighting either. I just think it's funny that anyone would be shocked that anyone doesn't want constant twitter attacks against them.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

That's a different argument. Having a bot ban people underneath a certain number of Twitter followers to hide the potential of criticism reveals how thin-skinned and ridiculous she is. If you claim to be a journalist or activist then your job is to make your point to as many people as possible. #Thatsdemocracy. She clearly only wants to hear praise, but reserves the right to troll others when it suits her. #thatsdogma

That's a different argument. Having a bot ban people underneath a certain number of Twitter followers to hide the potential of criticism reveals how thin-skinned and ridiculous she is. If you claim to be a journalist or activist then your job is to make your point to as many people as possible. #Thatsdemocracy. She clearly only wants to hear praise, but reserves the right to troll others when it suits her. #thatsdogma

I don't think it is her job to make your point to as many people as possible especially when we are talking about a platform like twitter. Even you have to admit that her twitter is filled a lot of hate filled garbage that doesn't do anything but distract from whatever she is trying to say. Using a bot to clear up a lot of that automatically makes sense. For all we know, it actually gains her viewers as they can read the comments to her articles and her responses.

Imagine that she never blocked a single person. What do you think her twitter would look like? I'm going to guess that it would be unreadable.

I don't think it is her job to make your point to as many people as possible especially when we are talking about a platform like twitter. Even you have to admit that her twitter is filled a lot of hate filled garbage that doesn't do anything but distract from whatever she is trying to say. Using a bot to clear up a lot of that automatically makes sense. For all we know, it actually gains her viewers as they can read the comments to her articles and her responses.

Imagine that she never blocked a single person. What do you think her twitter would look like? I'm going to guess that it would be unreadable.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Per usual you have ignored what I have said to make your "point", which originally was that people want to be praised. Now her Twitter would be unreadable if she was not blocking people. Her feed would be the same unless you decided to scroll through everyone who replied to her, but even that is not the argument here. It's that automatically banning accounts based on their number of followers is pre-censorship. This defeats the purpose of her claim that she needs Twitter for her job or to grow her audience.

If someone is attacking her weight or acting crazy she can go ahead and ban then. It's pre-banning people who have not even engaged her.

"Pre-banning"

"Pre-banning"

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

That's what she does. I don't remember exactly when it was, but she did say something about finding a bot or script that would go through her followers and the people they interact with and ban everyone that didn't meet some threshold. Whether that's followers, or following someone she doesn't like, whatever. But she does block people before they ever follow or even interact with her, admits that she doesn't see a lot of trolls, and still complains about the platform and resultant atmosphere. She's a bullshit artist, front to back.

Inspired by pre-crime. Really it's profiling, which she certainly rails against. These accounts might say something mean. Ban.

It keeps getting better!

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

That's what she does. I don't remember exactly when it was, but she did say something about finding a bot or script that would go through her followers and the people they interact with and ban everyone that didn't meet some threshold. Whether that's followers, or following someone she doesn't like, whatever. But she does block people before they ever follow or even interact with her, admits that she doesn't see a lot of trolls, and still complains about the platform and resultant atmosphere. She's a bullshit artist, front to back.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

What do you disagree with? You certainly seem to have nothing to say to dispute it.

If I may though, I seem to remember a lot of talk on here about how she should "take her account private" to avoid trolls. This was actual advice given many times in this thread.

However, "pre-banning" is a terrible thing.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

It looks like she's launching a new podcast called "Burn it all Down."

Sounds like someone is bitter

JLN, ogie, and ruffcorn have already gotten about 15-20 minutes in to listening the podcast and are all taking copious notes.... i look forward to their analysis

This is a basic logic game.

She insists that she needs Twitter for work. For this to be true it needs her account to be public. She cannot stand criticism, but cannot turn her account private. So she has attempted to create an account that bans people from even attempting to criticize her if she deems they they might.

This is circumventing the purpose of Twitter. It is preventing her from growing her audience, which is supposed to be the point of Twitter that she "needs" for work. If it's a private account then it can be purely for accolades. Attempting to have both defeats the purpose.

I don't really care enough to argue whether it is good or bad for her to do it. She would know much better than us given she has at least developed a strong following and worked herself into the media.

It's just very SJW-ish to complain that Julie may have "pre-banned" someone incorrectly.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Julie DiCaro‏Verified account @JulieDiCaro 4h4 hours ago
Chick @ORD has plugged in her phone and now is sleeping on bench, preventing everyone from using charging station. How far can I go here?

Julie DiCaro‏Verified account @JulieDiCaro 4h4 hours ago
I should add this is a millennial sleeping with a GD stuffed animal in public.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

JLN, ogie, and ruffcorn have already gotten about 15-20 minutes in to listening the podcast and are all taking copious notes.... i look forward to their analysis

I barely made it through the poorly mixed intro music (which is copyright infringement, I'm sure)

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.