In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
12d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
The statement critiques a digital ID scheme proposed by Keir Starmer, suggesting it is authoritarian and lacks democratic legitimacy. It references Palantir's decision not to support the scheme, implying even companies with controversial reputations find it problematic. The tone is critical and alarmist, aiming to rally opposition to the digital ID initiative.
- The statement uses strong language ('fashy') that could be seen as harmful or inflammatory, potentially violating the principle of doing no harm. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It respects privacy by not disclosing personal information but uses language that could be seen as disrespectful to public figures. [-1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement aims to promote understanding and awareness about the potential risks of digital IDs, aligning with the principle of promoting empathy and compassion. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism of the digital ID scheme and its proponents, but the use of terms like 'fashy' and 'deep state' could be seen as personal attacks rather than constructive criticism. [-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.