Posted by Lou Pilder on December 18, 2015, at 16:37:14
In reply to Re: Is you had, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2014, at 0:53:40
> > Why not just delete the link and post the artists name.
> My policy is not to delete posts.
You wrote,[...My policy is not to delete posts...].
But you do delete posts. This brings up what criteria that you use to delete the posts that you have deleted. Your overriding criteria in your TOS is that whatever you do or do not do is because it will be good in your vision in the future for the community as a whole. And you want readers to trust you at that.
I find that you then could discriminate in which posts you delete, all the time in your mind justifying that by saying that in the future what you did will make the community gooder. But what if the deletion or the refusal to delete causes harm to someone? Would that not be a gooder criteria to use than to use your vision that by deleting or not deleting a gooder community will result? Your posting of the swastika here is in question. You refuse to delete it but you do delete other posts. The harm that could come to Jews by readers seeing that you will not delete the swastika could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and Jews could be harmed. You do not use that as a criteria to delete? But you will use the criteria od leaving the swastika because you have some vision that by you doing that the community will be gooder? How would anyone make a determination if by you posting the swastika the community will be gooder? Is that not an arbitrary decision to make, or even capricious or a discriminatory one? If not, then you have some type of justification for it? If so, what is that?