In reply to:
Pavel Durov
@durov
·
11d
The statement by @durov and the subsequent conversation involve a critique of the European Union's regulatory approach towards tech companies, specifically regarding free speech and censorship. The tone is critical and defensive, suggesting that the EU's actions are punitive and coercive. The intent is to highlight perceived overreach by the EU and to defend the platforms' stance on free speech.
- The statement does not directly harm others but implies harm by the EU's actions, which could be seen as a violation of free speech principles.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on institutional critique 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 does not promote understanding or empathy, as it is primarily accusatory and defensive. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue but rather presents a one-sided critique 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 upholds free speech principles by defending against perceived censorship, but it could be more balanced in its critique. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.