Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
749d
In reply to:
The statement 'Public safety requires more censorship, says BBC' engages in public discourse by addressing the balance between free speech and public safety. It suggests that increased censorship is necessary to protect public safety, which is a contentious issue involving free speech and regulation of harmful content.
- The statement implies a need for censorship to prevent harm, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It touches on respecting privacy and dignity by suggesting censorship to prevent hate speech, but it could also infringe on free speech rights.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 engage in personal attacks but could be seen as a critique of current content moderation policies. [+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.
- It uses influence to advocate for societal safety, though it may be controversial. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement challenges the principle of free speech by advocating for more censorship, which could be seen as a violation. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.