Reposted by Michael Shellenberger
The statement and conversation involve a discussion about the GRANITE Act and its implications for U.S. companies in relation to European Commission actions, touching on issues of free speech and international legal dynamics. The tone is assertive, advocating for legislative action to counter perceived censorship by the EU.
- The statement does not directly harm others with words or actions, but it does use strong language to criticize the EU's actions.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does criticize the EU's actions.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 is more focused on advocating for a specific legislative action. [-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 presents a one-sided view without acknowledging the EU's perspective. [-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 influence to advocate for legislative action, which could be seen as an attempt to better society by protecting free speech, but it lacks a balanced view.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds the principle of free speech by advocating against perceived censorship, but it does so in a manner that lacks nuance and balance. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.