Article summary: + Headline includes the inflammatory term "addiction" without support. + Inflammatory term "monopoly" is immediately followed, apparently wit

Article summary: + Headline includes the inflammatory term "addiction" without support. + Inflammatory term "monopoly" is immediately followed, apparently without irony, by a paragraph exploring the many alternatives. + Article gives no factual support why alternatives are better, except for a condescending throwaway statement that "ten years of suboptimal habits" have prevented readers from knowing any better. + Author rants about implementation of emoji typing. + Article claims that GitHub leads to bad coding by discouraging people from thinking. No factual support. + Article shifts suddenly to an apparent moral obligation not to use GitHub. The best justification I found is the claim that by using GitHub, you encourage others to use GitHub, because it's a popular site and you make it more popular. Unclear where the morality lies in that argument. I think the author doesn't like GitHub, but it's possible to make the point better. Don't insult your audience, don't assume your reader will take your main premise as a given, don't lean on rhetorical terms like "addiction" and "monopoly," especially without support, and do provide a common ground that acknowledges that others can see the same facts as you but reach different conclusions.