Reposted by Michael Shellenberger
The statement questions the European Parliament's decision to block a website, suggesting concerns about censorship and transparency. It implies a critique of governmental control over information access, particularly in the context of alleged censorship in France.
- The statement raises concerns about potential harm through censorship, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by advocating for transparency. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It respects privacy and dignity by focusing on institutional actions rather than personal attacks. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding by questioning the criteria for blocking the site, encouraging dialogue about transparency. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- It engages in constructive criticism by questioning the criteria used for blacklisting, without resorting to 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 highlight potential issues of censorship, aiming to better societal understanding of governmental actions. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.