In reply to:
Francis Irving
@frabcus
·
410d
The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the actions of startup founders in Silicon Valley, specifically addressing the issue of company sales and their impact on employees. The reply by @frabcus and the subsequent response by @tunguz also contribute to this public discourse by questioning and clarifying the motivations and outcomes of such sales.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it does imply a negative comparison between the speaker's actions and those of other founders, which could be seen as indirectly harmful.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others to some extent but does engage in a form of public shaming by contrasting the speaker's actions with those of other founders. [-1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion; it is more defensive and comparative in nature. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in a form of constructive criticism by defending the speaker's actions, but it also borders on personal attacks by negatively comparing other founders' actions. [-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 and uses the platform to engage in a public discussion, but it could be more responsible and constructive in its tone. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.