The statement in question is a response to a query about why certain content is behind a paywall. The tone of the response is defensive and explanatory, aiming to justify the use of a paywall by comparing it to the practices of established newspapers. The intent is to communicate the value of the work and the need for compensation for that work. The content does not appear to be harmful, disrespectful, or uncompassionate. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, nor does it violate privacy or dignity. The statement promotes understanding of the economic realities of journalism and engages in constructive criticism by explaining the rationale behind paywalls. It does not directly address free speech, influence on society, or the correction of mistakes.
- The statement does no harm with words or actions. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement uses words to promote understanding. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism. [+1]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 upholds the principles of free speech by explaining the use of a paywall as a means to sustain journalism. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.