Twitter

Yes, You Can Get Kicked Off Twitter for Saying 'Learn To Code'—Even If It's Not Harassment

"I'm more confused than angry about all of this."

|

Twitter
Pavel Starikov / Dreamstime

Chuck Ross, a reporter at The Daily Caller, was recently suspended from Twitter after making a "learn to code" meta joke—an incident that calls into question the company's earlier claims regarding the problematic quip.

A few weeks ago, The Wrap's Jon Levine reported that a "person in the know" had told him tweeting "learn to code" at a laid-off journalist would be considered a violation of the platform's terms of service, and could result in a ban. Twitter swiftly clarified that the phrase "learn to code" itself would not be considered harassment unless directed at specific individuals as part of a targeted campaign. The company routinely takes action against such kinds of communication, whether or not they are insinuations that coding experience is a better path to financial stability than journalism.

"Twitter is responding to a targeted harassment campaign against specific individuals—a policy that's long been against the Twitter Rules," a spokesperson told me.

On Sunday afternoon, Ross sent a "learn to code" tweet that should not have been considered harassment under the above definition. The tweet is screenshotted here. A writer for State Scoop had quoted former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, as saying that a 34-year-old geologist who works for ExxonMobil should "be sharpening their other skills." Ross quote-tweeted the statement, adding "learn to code." This was clearly a joke directed at the theoretical geologist, not the State Scoop writer.

Nevertheless, Ross was suspended by Twitter around 10:00 p.m., shortly after President Trump had retweeted one of his articles.

"I have no evidence of course that this was a causal event, but I can imagine that maybe one of the numerous trolls who jumped into my Twitter feed referred me to Twitter," Ross told me in an interview.

Ross appealed the suspension, and Twitter told him it would be several days before a decision was made. Preferring not to wait that long, Ross opted to comply with Twitter's request that he delete the tweet. He was then placed under lockdown for 12 hours, during which he couldn't tweet but could read and send direct messages and browse other people's tweets.

Twitter did not immediately respond to my request for comment about what happened. Ross told me that a representative for the company confirmed to him that they are looking into the matter.

"I'm more confused than angry about all of this," Ross said.

I'm also confused, since Twitter's actions here contradict their contention that tweeting "learn to code" is only verboten in certain situations. And this is not the first such contradiction: A Washington Examiner writer was similarly suspended for a learn-to-code tweet that had nothing to do with harassment. (Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently admitted that the company may have been "too aggressive" about policing this specific phrase.)

I respect Twitter's right as a private company to set its own rules for what kinds of speech are allowed. But the platform is ostensibly committed to free speech, and it's thus a tad concerning that making an obvious joke about the employment prospects of imaginary people is now being treated as harassment. At the very least, I would like to know more about how these decisions are made.

NEXT: Trump's Budget Would Add $7.9 Trillion to the National Debt Over the Next Decade

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If simply saying “learn to code” is ban-worthy, instructional sites like Coursera must be hardest hit.

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
      >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  2. Why is it verboten under any circumstances? It’s just sound advice is what it is. And coding is fun to boot!

    1. Because it hurts lefty journos in the feels, getting their own shitty advice back at them. We have to be vigilant about this, as opposed to, say, putting catholic teenagers into woodchippers, which is really open to interpretation

      1. The reason it hurts leftards is that on some very dim level they’re aware of their own incompetence, so urging them to acquire a marketable skill feels like taunting.

        They believe that they’re entitled to snivel at the billionaires who keep the legacy media afloat, and keep collecting paychecks for activity that can’t be described as “useful work” in any way, shape or form.

        -jcr

    2. I’m offended by it because it implies that “coding” is an easy skill for otherwise useless people to learn when 90% of the people spending years studying it in college can’t program their way out of a paper bag.

      That said banning people for saying it is just dumb. This is just more evidence Twitter is garbage and not worth the high you get from it for interacting with your rent-a-friends on it.

  3. Watch the Joe Rogan podcast with Tim Poole on this. Poole did an exemplary job of taking Twitter CEO and his Community Safe Space And Social Justice Officer to task over it.

    1. I agree he did a good job*, but he himself is admittedly leftist. I think this mentality (if only trolling) hinders him and he never really cuts to the quick of asking “If you’re content neutral, how are you able to ban anything that isn’t an explicit and direct threat and if you’re able to ban veiled and convoluted threats, how are you content neutral?”

      There’s one point where the Twitter rep flat out says they abstractly don’t care about any real world implications, just what speech someone else says they should be booting people over and Poole just kinda turns it back to “Yeah, but you don’t do it to both sides equally is the problem.” Still, he does do a good job of making Dorsey and the rep look like uninformed, uncritical tools.

      *I admit to watching most of the exchange(s) passively and it’s possible he asked what I’m suggesting and I missed it.

      1. Poole is one of the better journalists/commentators I’ve seen. His problem is that he desires socialist policies with the goal of bettering society. He admits he doesn’t know how to do this effectively and doesn’t want to do it if it severely impacts individual rights. His blind spot is more sentimental and a lack of interest in figuring out how his stated goals are out of line with his principles. If nothing else, I appreciate that he tries speaking honestly and admits his shortcomings.

        1. “Poole is one of the better journalists/commentators I’ve seen. His problem is that he desires socialist policies with the goal of bettering society.”

          Followed by:
          “He admits he doesn’t know how to do this effectively and doesn’t want to do it if it severely impacts individual rights.”

          If that’s one of the betters, how far do the worse have to sink?
          I mean, I’d love utopia also, but tough shit. And if you are a ‘journalist’ who has yet to figure that out, why, you’re not among the best. You’re among the most ignorant.

          1. I mean, I’d love utopia also, but tough shit. And if you are a ‘journalist’ who has yet to figure that out, why, you’re not among the best. You’re among the most ignorant.

            Unfortunately, you’re wrong. Think about what’s being said. Tim would advocate socialism if and only if it wasn’t via the use of force and didn’t undermine individual rights. He’s a better socialist than Bernie Sanders, he’s a better libertarian than an overwhelming majority of Democrats and, while he doesn’t exactly identify as a journalist as much as a blogger, he’s a lot more forthright and honest than a lot of the “libertarians” who write for Reason.

        2. Tim’s a ‘sentimental’ leftist

          He got his start being a raging idiot lefty, but was a bit too smart for that and slipped away rightward–but he can’t bring himself to admit that he’s now on the side that he has been indoctrinated to think is unspeakably evil.

          Sargon is the same way–he’s a man of the left, so long as the left doesn’t violate his classical liberal stances….which means he’s not a man of the left at all anymore.

          There are bunches of these people in the right wing opinionosphere– ‘leftists’ who can’t bring themselves to admit being that thing which they’ve been taught is worse than all other things—right wing.

          It’s a major impediment to libertarians as well.

    2. Yes, the Rogan podcast with Tim was excellent. Tim roasted the Twits CEO and the SJW/Attorney.

    3. Thanks for the heads up – just watched that video and he took them apart. Dorsey was wishing he was at Zuckerberg’s castle eating rare goat meat.

    4. Vijaya Gadde and Jack Dorsey had perfectly reasonable explanations for why people like Sargon of Akkad were banned. Every time they would give their reasonable explanation, Tim would move on to his next example, and then they would knock that down with facts. You can say, well, that Tweet’s obviously a joke, but it doesn’t seem that way when you’re sifting through thousands of cases, trying to determine who is joking about throwing his nemeses out of helicopters and who is genuinely disturbed.

      That said, there is a real problem of enforcement being one-sided. Twitter probably polices the cases they find most egregious, which happen to be the accounts they disagree with politically. Citing numerous, anecdotal examples of people being banned for dubious reasons doesn’t make that empirical point. About an hour or so into the interview, he quoted some numbers to bolster his argument, but most of the interview was he-said she-said nonsense.

      Tim often wouldn’t name the people involved because he allegedly didn’t want to be known for getting people thrown off of Twitter. Well, then why bring it up? The lady with the one laptop that could provide insight into those cases was sitting right there. You’re going to give us your one-sided account of this person’s behavior and then not let Twitter present the facts it had on file? I really don’t want to hear your sanctimonious piffle about how it’s journalistic ethics to not identify somebody’s public Twitter account.

      1. Nope. They did not. Not in a single example. Jack and Vijaya lied. Over and over again.

        To justify their bias.

        There are endless calls for white genocide on twitter.

        But one can’t even mention any other type (well, except for jews or ‘israelis’) without virtual instaban.

        And if you’re ON twttter, speaking in a way they don’t like on OTHER social media is also verboten.

        They aren’t simply biased, they’re censorious.

      2. Gade and Dorsey not once could state why legitimate death threats were ignored while generalistic anti trans comments were not. They danced around and kept claiming targeted harassment that came to their attention. Gade denied that liberal journos highlighting harassment forced them into various investigations like with Sargon. And they both refused to answer the end judgement question of if there was bias in the people who ultimately decided to ban someone even after Poole brought up the 21 of 23 banned accounts were conservative.

        You sir are a fucking liar.

  4. I thought it was a snarky comment directed at journalists whose go to advice for workers in other industries hit by obsolescence was computer training. Who knew journalists were such sensitive souls and get so much sympathy from social media giants?

    1. It’s self defense. Those social media and tech companies absolutely positively do not want a bunch of out-of-work journalists learning to code. Trust me.

      1. By God, it’s genius!

      2. It’s self defense. Those social media and tech companies absolutely positively do not want a bunch of out-of-work journalists learning to code. Trust me.

        #we’lltakethecoalminers

        1. At least they’re functional alcoholics.

        2. … but we don’t want the Irish.

      3. They are right now working on Windows 12.

      4. Speaking as one who has many years in the computer industry under my belt, I’d far rather teach a coal miner to code than a “journalist”.

        -jcr

  5. The real question is why is it that Twitter banned this intrepid journalist from being able to post on Trump’s Twitter feed. Remember that Twitter was nationalized as a town hall meeting in order to keep Trump from banning people from his private account, and that the reasoning was that people had to be able to reply to him?

    Well, when Twitter bans people aren’t they interfering with people’s right to reply to Trump’s Twitter feed?

    I mean, don’t ask me to make this make any sense. I fully acknowledge it’s stupid and makes zero sense, but isn’t that the law? Why won’t one of these journalists bring that up in court?

    1. […] but isn’t that the law?

      Nope.

      But I suspect you know that, and are deliberately misrepresenting that decision in order to mock all this.

      1. Please enlighten us how this mocking interpretation is wrong? Because as I understand it, the courts decided that Trump couldn’t block people from his Twitter feed, for reasons.

        1. The difference is that one is considered an act of government (Trump banning people) where the first amendment is applicable, and another is an act of a private company (Twitter banning people) where the first amendment does not apply

          1. However, Kevin, to give a comparison, if the town meeting is being held in a rented building, the building is acting as the government and cannot ban people from meeting without good cause, and that good cause cannot be political.

            Because so far as Trump’s twitter feed is concerning, Twitter IS acting as the government’s host. A private company preventing access to the government is just outsourced government.

            1. In fact, there can’t even be a good reason since it hinders their ability to reply to Trump on Twitter and the court didn’t provide any guidance other than nope, can’t ban people because they have a right to post to Trumps Twit feed. So if I get banned from Twitter for breaking their TOS they just blocked me from posting to Trumps Twitter and courts have decided that’s a right.

              I mainly bring it up because it’s insane and shows exactly how stupid TDS and the courts are, I doubt Twitter is interested in exploring how nationalized they really are.

            2. Nah, I’m pretty sure that if a local coffee shop had a “this person is banned from the premises” list, that even if a local politician had rented part of the space (not the whole space, just part of it) for a town hall event, that individuals on the list still wouldn’t be legally entitled to entrance to the premises.

              1. Nah, I’m pretty sure that if….

                But there’s no need for ‘if’. This has already been decided in court–and it has been decided that EVERYONE must be able to access Trump’s twitter feed.

                There were no caveats made for people twitter doesn’t like.

                The case is closed.

                1. But there’s no need for ‘if’. This has already been decided in court–and it has been decided that EVERYONE must be able to access Trump’s twitter feed.

                  Nope.

                  It was that President Trump couldn’t block people. The injunction was against no one else.

                  1. Which amounts to saying that private entities are legally able to bar people from open attendance public town hall meetings without cause or consideration. Thus if the government wants to bar certain people from political participation, all they need to do is carefully choose the venue.

  6. At the very least, I would like to know more about how these decisions are made.

    Ideologically.

    1. There’s about a million things I would like to know more than Twitter’s procedures

    2. I personally think they roll a D20

      1. I’d say it has to be percentile dice.

        1. Government being a Call of Cthulhu game kind of makes sense.

        2. They lost the savings throw

  7. Phone numbers and emails allow you to say anything to anyone. Social media is for censored communication with people who sign up for the same set of rules. Relying on social media to connect with friends is like maintaining a friendship with a guy whom you only see at the local bar or at your house of worship. Yes, it’s a neighborly relationship, but you’ll never get to the level where you can speak freely to each other.

    1. I speak freely to anyone at the local bar- even total strangers.

      1. We can’t all live next door to the Blue Oyster like you can, though

        1. Don’t be a hater

        2. “We can’t all live next door to the Blue Oyster like you can, though.”
          Move.

          1. Jeff only moves if he can do so illegally.

      2. I fucking love talking to absolute strangers. Best to keep your mind limber.

  8. What’s the mechanism for suspension? I don’t keep up with the machinations of Twitter. Are there humans involved? Does a complaint trigger it?

    1. Based on personal experience, I suspect humans are involved. I have appealed the same tweet 6 times and randomly got a “hateful” violation explanation in the middle of a bunch of “abusive” violation. I think they probably use drop down menus or something to generate the form letter.

      Complaints will trigger it, but I suspect they also have a computer algorithm flagging likely problematic tweets (racial slurs and #LearnToCode probably get reviewed automatically).

  9. Tweeting is stupid. People who tweet are stupid.

    1. Tweeting is for the birds?

    2. Truth. Twit Bitches have it coming.

      https://youtu.be/yc86ZXFsriM

  10. If twitter’s “learn to code” ban saves even one journalist’s feels it’s worth it

  11. Twitter has yet to make money and those guys presumably know how to code. What career advice would be suitable for them?

    1. Learn how to cook and open a gluten free restaurant. 1% of the population is allergic to wheat, but 40% think they are celiacs, so open the doors, ring the bell, and take their money.

  12. Nancy says “NO” to impeachment.

    “I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before,” Pelosi said in a Washington Post interview published Monday.

    “But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi told the paper. “And he’s just not worth it.”

    1. Huh. Pelosi may have reverse senility- she seems to be getting less stupid. Maybe it’s just in comparison to her fellow travelers.

      1. She’d lost the Speakership a couple of times before because of overreach, so she may be learning.

    2. “I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi told the paper. “And he’s just not worth it.”

      “Of course, we should keep on the paths of gun control, abortion, things like that.”

      1. That’s the problem with totalitarians – lack of focus

    3. “Let’s see that Cortez bitch one-up this one.”

  13. In what world is it cruel to tell an unemployed person or someone in a rapidly dying industry to make sure to keep their skillset up to date and marketable? Isn’t “learn to code” really just shorthand for that?

  14. “Oh, very well. ‘Learn to Tweet.'”

  15. Learn to cope!

  16. What if you tweet “learn to code” after encrypting it with a cipher? Would they get the joke?

  17. Get used to it.

    Until we have better computer moderators, and have to rely on human moderators, anything “sensitive” is going to be subject to a “ban first, ask questions if they appeal” mentality.

    And yes, repeating a phrase that is already ban-able in a specific context in a context that’s close (but not quite there) is obviously ripe for being a false positive. So he’ll probably win on appeal. But y’all should probably know better then to try and toe that line.

    1. I believe it’s spelled “tow the lion”

      1. Remember, the mane.

        1. lol. Score.

    2. Using the human operator is supposed to alleviate the false positive, because using the computer operator definitely resulted in false positives, laughably bizarre false-positives. Like an autopilot Tesla crashing into a parked fire truck on the freeway false-positives.

      1. alleviate != eliminate.

  18. The best way to not get kicked off of Twitter is to not be on Twitter.

    1. Self-kicking… it’s the future.

    2. Yeah, Twitter sucks.

      Stay the fuck off of Twitter.

      That being said”

      1) Twitter should be free to associate or not associate with anyone they please so long as their decision is within the proper confines of their contractual obligations to content creators on their platform.

      2) It is unclear to me that arbitrarily kicking people off their platform is within the proper confines of their contractual obligations to content creators.

      And, no, inserting a clause into your terms of service saying that you can change the terms to whatever you want whenever you want doesn’t mean shit. If the terms of the contract are such that the terms can be changed at any time, there was no contract–and you tricked those people into investing the time, effort, and money creating content for your platform, only to pull the rug out from under them?

      That’s fraud. Don’t expect the courts to help you defraud people.

      1. If I put up a sign saying that I’ll pay you $500 to find my lost cat, and you spend all Sunday going out and looking for my cat, I don’t get to not pay you the $500 because I put a clause at the bottom of the sign saying that I can change the terms whenever I want. If you found my cat, the courts will enforce that contract and ignore the verbiage that effectively says that there is no contract because one party can change the terms to whatever they like whenever they like.

        If this guy put time and effort into Twitter’s platform, they have legal obligations to him. Just because congress and the president shouldn’t get involved doesn’t mean the courts shouldn’t get involved. This is and should be a contract dispute–not a First Amendment issue.

    3. “The best way to not get kicked off of Twitter is to not be on Twitter.”
      As an old fart, it’s not surprising that Twitter and I are not acquainted.
      AFAICT, I have suffered no harm from never even bothering to look at what anyone posts on Twitter; if I’m wrong, please advise me of such.
      From this seat in the bleachers, it appears similar to the ‘Who let out the dogs?’ meme in the ’90s; something those who considered themselves the cool kids did and commented on. Managed to slide totally under the radar there, and so far, see no reason to raised my head here.
      What, in logical terms please, is gained by ‘tweeting’?

    4. Bot accounts don’t care – their masters will create new ones. As best I can tell, twitter only exists for two purposes beyond their primary directive of automated Stalinism and gaslighting America: so agents can manufacture buzz about their b list clients, and serve up random porn for people at work/go around blacklisted sites.
      Anyway… I hate the collective of bumper sticker brains there, and staying away is imperative. The necessary question of course is… why does the president tweet? The answer I believe is that’s where the journalists are, and he doesn’t have to go through their editors to poke the bear.

  19. Learn, Goddammit.

  20. I got the boot for a tweet saying that the folks that made the filter need to “#LearnToCode a little better.” in response to Dave Rubin talking about the #LearnToCode silliness. Twitter says that I have to remove the tweet about coding to get back on. They indicate this would be an admission of my bad behavior and I would be forgoing the option to appeal. I appealed it 3 times and got the “abusive” violation response. The 4th time got a “hateful” violation response. The 5th and 6th went back to abusive. I was literally talking about coders coding. They ironically say the tweet was meant to “silence another user’s voice.” So they silenced me, lol.

    1. “I got the boot for a tweet saying that the folks that made the filter need to “#LearnToCode a little better.”

      The man in the article is a reporter, someone who makes his living by writing. He deserves to be admonished if only for clogging up the internet repeating trite phrases.

    2. If only we could turn stupidity into alternative energy – twitter has to be able to serve up something like 5 gigawatts of power.

  21. No tie on the Tucker Carlson show but instead an open collar shirt. I think I saw on the chyron “EYES ARE UP HERE”.

  22. This might not have anything to do with saying “learn to code.” As it says in the article:

    “Nevertheless, Ross was suspended by Twitter around 10:00 p.m., shortly after President Trump had retweeted one of his articles.”

    He might have been kicked off for saying something Trump liked. It is Twitter, after all.

  23. What the fuck does “learn to code” even mean?

    1. Journalists told it to miners and others who lost their jobs.

      People are returning the favor when journalists lost their jobs.

  24. “At the very least, I would like to know more about how these decisions are made.”

    The guy was retweeted by Trump. Don’t get hung up on ‘learn to code.’ It’s only pretext. Or code.

  25. “Learn to Code” is never harassment.

    1. ‘Learn to decode,’ on the other hand….

      1. &?pos;Learn to encode&?pos;

  26. Learn to code is not an instruction that any journalist will ever follow, unless they are sure (1) it came down the chain of command directly from the DNC like all their other orders, and (2) it is part of a coordinated, all-hands-on-deck effort to destroy Trump and all his supporters.

  27. I think President Trump should start a National Dialogue about how Twitter et al are supposed to be neutral publishers who can’t be held liable for merely being the means of communication between people are quickly and efficiently changing that to being publishers who only allow certain communications deemed acceptable to occur.

    And all it would take would be for President Trump to tweet “Learn to code.”

  28. I have an alternative suggestion for unemployed journalist:

    4C 65 61 72 6E 32 43 6F 64 65

    1. bGVhcm4gdG8gY29kZQ==

  29. Want me to drag him outta here? Kick the shit out of him for ya?

  30. I’m also confused, since Twitter’s actions here contradict their contention that tweeting “learn to code” is only verboten in certain situations.

    Really? You’re confused? Are you still confused by the “got your nose” trick and the “pull my finger” trick, too? Because I’m pretty sure your average second-grader can explain all three of these mysteries to you. Somebody who says one thing and does another is what we call “a liar” – it’s not that difficult a concept to grasp.

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://xurl.es/BestOnline

  32. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://xurl.es/BestOnline

  33. I’d like to learn to code, but it involves sitting on your ass for 12 hours a day and that’s irksome. Maybe I could end up working at one of those hip places with the treadmills and/or the standing desks, but that’s some big shitty life I want no part of.

  34. Instead of “Learn to code,” how about, “Learn to do something that’s in demand and pays well – like welding; respiratory therapist; CNC machinist; plumber.” Or would Twitter ban that?

    1. Learn to lay pipe

  35. Someone had written a long tweet incrementally transforming one phrase into another.
    Some asked them “did you type that all by hand?”

    I responded with “See what you can do when you #LearnToCode!”

    I’m still suspended over a month later. Their whole “appeal” process is a complete clown show. They ask for an appeal *before they’ve told you any grounds for objection to the tweet*, then don’t respond to anything you write in your appeal. Kafka would be proud.

    1. This un-suspended account?

  36. “Learn to code” is the new “n-word.”

    It has been decreed by… someone.

    We must all agree, now.

  37. ?Google pay 95$ consistently my last pay check was $8200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can’t confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern…GOOD LUCK .

    click here =====?? http://www.Geosalary.com

  38. I guess it’s time to find a substitute term like “learn to tweet” for example. 😉

  39. So “Learn to code” is hurtful, but “Check your privilege ” is not?

    Can anyone explain this in a way that is logical?

  40. It is a problem. I do like reading the Daily Caller, because they are very to the Right. I may not agree with all of their opinions, but I find them interesting. And it is obvious Twitter is banning this guy because of his association with the far Right. Just like in the McCarthy age, plenty of organizations did stuff like this in the other direction. This hate-the-right bias has been going on for a while, I’d say for at least a decade, which is a big factor in what energized voters for Trump. This may be ironic that I am saying this, since I intensely dislike our President.

  41. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.pradabagtmall.com/ word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.