Ghost City Planner
@redplanning
·
281d
The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the implications of censorship and the role of private entities versus government involvement in such actions. The tone is somewhat dismissive of the actions of billionaires while highlighting a perceived difference in the severity of censorship when conducted by private entities versus the government.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as downplaying the impact of censorship by private entities. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy by suggesting the blotting out of personal details, but it does not address the dignity of those involved.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 focused on making a point about the legality and severity of actions by different entities. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by differentiating between the actions of private entities and the government, but it does not engage in personal attacks. [+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 uses its platform to discuss a societal issue, contributing to the dialogue on censorship and free speech. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech by discussing the nuances of censorship and the roles of different actors in it. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.