I certainly wasn't intending to troll. And I wasn't trying to argue for or against the aritcle's position. All I was trying to say was that, from my reading of it, this case study lacked the nuance, backing of points with data, and honest questioning I've seen in others.
I can't parse the title; can someone explain it?
Oh, is "Its" supposed to be "It's" (It Has)?
I usually enjoy these case studies, but this one seemed very biased. All of the decisions to be made and questions to consider seemed worded to only allow one direction of answer.
I had never heard of xHamster, and have no idea what their business model is, if any; maybe more background on that would have helped me understand where the article author is coming from.
TL;DR for the article: bad website, bad bad website
the President of the United States has total freedom to declassify anything on his own whims at any time. And these tweets sure looked like him doing exactly that.
Not by my reading. The tweets do not declassify, they are only statements about what Trump has done. And they are lies, but Trump lying in a tweet is legal and in fact usual. I (unfortunately) don't see how it has any bearing on the court cases at all.