In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
1d
The statement discusses potential government influence on tech companies regarding content moderation, suggesting that such influence could have impacted a Supreme Court ruling. It implies that the White House exerted pressure on tech firms to censor content, raising concerns about free speech and government overreach.
- The statement suggests harm by alleging government bullying, which could undermine trust in public institutions. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It raises privacy and dignity concerns by accusing the White House of inappropriate influence, potentially without sufficient evidence. [-1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement engages in criticism of government actions, but it lacks constructive dialogue and may rely on assumptions. [-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 its platform to highlight issues of free speech and government influence, which can contribute to public awareness. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.