Screened a comment (and its replies) on page 3 because of the use of an insulting term derived from a slur in it. The user then proceeded to ban me, so I can't do what I've done with other similar instances and reply publicly to the screened comment with the questionable language starred out, so I'm reposting it as a new thread so people can see the context of what I'm replying to:
you are disgusting ******* idiots like the most of your bunch? Big fucking surprise
We've published our Guiding Principles on every page of the site since we opened, and we evaluate everything we do as a business through that lens. Like every site that accepts user-generated content, we place some restrictions on that content, in order to remove spam, comply with US law, and remove material that can have concrete, offline harm. Our commitment to upholding the maximum amount of user expression possible, and the fact that we don't need to sanitize the service to what's acceptable to advertisers and investors, means that we draw those restrictions in different places than most other providers out there, but the restrictions exist and always will. This is necessary not only for us to stay within the boundaries of the law, but because a site that allows user-generated content without any sort of content policy that is clearly and consistently enforced drives away the people who are participating in good faith and leaves only the people who are there because their habitual conduct is harmful enough that they've been removed from every other service. That specifically contradicts our principle of maximal inclusion.
The questions of where to draw the line in content policy are all complex, multi-factor decisions that require careful balancing. We believe a company (such as ours) that specifically works to maximize the amount of user expression possible, including expression that would be banned on some or all other platforms, has a greater responsibility to carefully and thoughtfully examine those content policy questions and arrive at an answer that takes all those factors into account. Cloudflare's blog post yesterday indicated they believe they should not ask themselves those policy questions at all. That indicates that our company values and principles contradict with theirs so firmly we no longer believe we can ethically do business with them.
If you believe that your values and principles contradict the ones that we've demonstrated enough that you can't remain a DW user, we'll be sorry to see you go, but we'll absolutely support your right to do so, just like we're ending our relationship with Cloudflare. Everyone should evaluate the ethics and principles of the companies they have a relationship with regularly! If we aren't still suited to yours, I wish you the very best in finding your next online home and hope that you're able to locate one with a better match.
no subject
We've published our Guiding Principles on every page of the site since we opened, and we evaluate everything we do as a business through that lens. Like every site that accepts user-generated content, we place some restrictions on that content, in order to remove spam, comply with US law, and remove material that can have concrete, offline harm. Our commitment to upholding the maximum amount of user expression possible, and the fact that we don't need to sanitize the service to what's acceptable to advertisers and investors, means that we draw those restrictions in different places than most other providers out there, but the restrictions exist and always will. This is necessary not only for us to stay within the boundaries of the law, but because a site that allows user-generated content without any sort of content policy that is clearly and consistently enforced drives away the people who are participating in good faith and leaves only the people who are there because their habitual conduct is harmful enough that they've been removed from every other service. That specifically contradicts our principle of maximal inclusion.
The questions of where to draw the line in content policy are all complex, multi-factor decisions that require careful balancing. We believe a company (such as ours) that specifically works to maximize the amount of user expression possible, including expression that would be banned on some or all other platforms, has a greater responsibility to carefully and thoughtfully examine those content policy questions and arrive at an answer that takes all those factors into account. Cloudflare's blog post yesterday indicated they believe they should not ask themselves those policy questions at all. That indicates that our company values and principles contradict with theirs so firmly we no longer believe we can ethically do business with them.
If you believe that your values and principles contradict the ones that we've demonstrated enough that you can't remain a DW user, we'll be sorry to see you go, but we'll absolutely support your right to do so, just like we're ending our relationship with Cloudflare. Everyone should evaluate the ethics and principles of the companies they have a relationship with regularly! If we aren't still suited to yours, I wish you the very best in finding your next online home and hope that you're able to locate one with a better match.