I don't see people "spamming" racial slurs. The most inflammatory thing I see is videos of young groups of African-Americans behaving badly. In the replies, I see comments like "usual suspects," or various memes that are admittedly racial slurs: for example, Jane Goodall with a pair of binoculars and the caption "Interesting behavior." I'm not saying that's nice. That's bad. But it's the most easily avoided thing.
Reads as: "People aren't spamming racial slurs. They're just posting racist memes. I don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist. Obviously it's bad but it's easily avoidable."
These are all typical ways to deflect from reality. I note that your response doesn't actually respond to the meat of my post in either case. You went out of your way to take issue with my statement about advertising not liking ads next to that kind of content.
There have always been dark corners of the Internet. Twitter's dark corners are so easily avoided, and a fraction of the traffic on the platform, as far as I can tell. Is there actually any data allowing people to make sense of it all, as opposed to allowing them to make a biased argument?
Reads as: "Even if it was, it's just the 'bad parts' and it's definitely not a big part of the platform."
Again distracts from the idea that advertisers might stop spending ad dollars on Twitter if that sort of thing is more allowed there. If you feel my statement is overbroad then argue about the actual thrust of what I said about advertisers' ad spend. Argue that it's not enough of a problem for advertisers to be concerned, rather than trying to deny it's happening in the first place. Acknowledge the sources you're presented, and dispute them if you can, rather than handwaving it away.
Yes, your entire interaction here reeks of apology, including your follow-up.