Reposted by Matt Taibbi
The statement is critical of the actions of Stanford researchers, suggesting that they have engaged in censorship despite their claims to the contrary. The tone is accusatory and implies wrongdoing on the part of the researchers. The attached image appears to be a workflow diagram from a grant proposal, which the statement claims illustrates the process of routing disinformation incidents to platform partners for potential takedown. The intent is to inform and possibly to provoke a response or discussion about the issue of censorship and the role of academic institutions in content moderation.
- The statement could potentially cause harm by accusing researchers of censorship, which is a serious allegation. However, if the claim is based on factual evidence, it could be seen as a necessary critique. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity by not targeting individuals but rather commenting on the actions of a group or institution. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement aims to promote understanding of the actions of the researchers, but the accusatory tone may not foster empathy.Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement calls for accountability from the researchers, which aligns with the principle of acknowledging and correcting mistakes if the allegations are true. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement uses the platform to discuss an issue of public interest responsibly, assuming the claim is based on evidence and not misinformation. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.