In reply to:
Wags
@LeifMcGrief
·
312d
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
The conversation involves a debate about free speech and the actions of a public figure, Elon Musk, in response to alleged disinformation and protest activities. The initial statement by @libsoftiktok claims that the EU's actions against disinformation are an attack on free speech, aligning with Elon Musk. @GaryMarcus challenges this by pointing out a perceived inconsistency in Musk's stance on free speech, referencing a statement about targeting those spreading propaganda. @LeifMcGrief questions the accuracy of @GaryMarcus's claim. The discourse touches on principles of free speech, accountability, and the impact of disinformation.
- The conversation involves a critique of actions perceived as harmful to free speech, but the tone is confrontational. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The discourse respects privacy but involves accusations that could affect reputations, bordering on disrespect. [-1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The dialogue is adversarial, with participants challenging each other's views without personal attacks.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 conversation engages with societal issues like free speech and disinformation, aiming to influence public opinion. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.