3 ms·

> I don't know the guy or his circumstances Then I'm sorry, but your comment is malinformed.

• encryptluks2 4y ago
  Based on what, your feelings? This is one of the most accurate authentic comments here.
  • aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    My feelings are: 1) this being common practice doesn't make it right 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions.
    • sangnoir 4y ago
      > 1) this being common practice doesn't make it right But that just makes Twitter normal - that doesn't deserve congressional hearings, or whistleblowing IMO. Doctor's only briefly talk to patients before moving on, and depend a lot on the file: I don't think that is right - but that's what the American standard of care seems to have settled on. If I were to sue a doctor for malpractice, alleging they'd have made a more accurate diagnosis by spending more time with me, a valid defense for them would be to show that they followed standard practice. > 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions. I learned from the New Yorker article that Mudge signed an 7- or 8-million dollar agreement with Twitter earlier this year that had a carve-out in its non-disparagement clause(s) for whistleblowing That definitely "adds color"