Imagine that you’ve heard some bad things about somebody (let’s call him Bob). But you didn’t update much because you didn’t hear both sides and you haven’t done any fact checking. Imagine Bob hears bad things about you and writes a hit piece about you, doing virtually no fact-checking, and destroying your mental health and ability to do good, potentially permanently.
Many people would say it’s completely within your rights to respond by sharing the things you’ve heard about Bob. However, we didn’t. We anonymized it and tried to use it as a way to illustrate how this methodology consistently leads to misleading and unethical outcomes.
He shared anonymous accusations and hearsay and said “update on Nonlinear. They are bad”
We shared anonymous accusations and hearsay and said “don’t update on Ben. You can make anything sound terrible and this methodology will consistently lead to inaccurate and unethical outcomes.”
We could indeed have used somebody else as an example, and if we had a time machine, maybe we’d do that. But I think it’s totally within our rights to use it as an example of how this methodology is deeply flawed and should not be used.
This is bordering on comical. I am going to use your framework to redescribe what you actually did.
“We have been told that Bob is a real predator, bad guy. however, it would be wrong to say that Bob is a real predator, bad guy. I know we just did that but we didn’t mean it. Btw we think it is true that Bob is a real predator.”
Imagine that you’ve heard some bad things about somebody (let’s call him Bob). But you didn’t update much because you didn’t hear both sides and you haven’t done any fact checking. Imagine Bob hears bad things about you and writes a hit piece about you, doing virtually no fact-checking, and destroying your mental health and ability to do good, potentially permanently.
Many people would say it’s completely within your rights to respond by sharing the things you’ve heard about Bob. However, we didn’t. We anonymized it and tried to use it as a way to illustrate how this methodology consistently leads to misleading and unethical outcomes.
He shared anonymous accusations and hearsay and said “update on Nonlinear. They are bad”
We shared anonymous accusations and hearsay and said “don’t update on Ben. You can make anything sound terrible and this methodology will consistently lead to inaccurate and unethical outcomes.”
We could indeed have used somebody else as an example, and if we had a time machine, maybe we’d do that. But I think it’s totally within our rights to use it as an example of how this methodology is deeply flawed and should not be used.
This is bordering on comical. I am going to use your framework to redescribe what you actually did.
“We have been told that Bob is a real predator, bad guy. however, it would be wrong to say that Bob is a real predator, bad guy. I know we just did that but we didn’t mean it. Btw we think it is true that Bob is a real predator.”