In reply to:
Mike Benz
@MikeBenzCyber
·
131d
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna
@RepLuna
·
131d
The statement 'Strongly agree' by @MikeBenzCyber is a response to a conversation about the removal of a video depicting a tragic incident. The original conversation involves a discussion on the impact of viewing such videos versus reading about them, and the ethical considerations of removing such content from platforms like TikTok. This constitutes public discourse as it engages with issues of media ethics, privacy, and the impact of graphic content on public understanding.
- The statement does not directly cause harm, but the context suggests a potential insensitivity to the family's wishes, which could be seen as a minor violation of striving to do no harm. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement indirectly touches on respecting privacy and dignity, as it supports the viewing of a video that the family wishes to be removed. This could be seen as a minor violation of respecting privacy. [-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, as it focuses on personal impact rather than the broader ethical implications, which is a minor violation. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it simply agrees without furthering the conversation or addressing opposing views, which is a minor violation. [-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.