Case 332 ('The service provides information about its attitude towards ethical, social or political problems or controversies') is likely too general

It has a ‘good’ weight of 25, enough to shift a rating two or three places in the absence of a blocker. This might be fine if it was unambiguously positive and a rare jewel among terms, but as @Agnes_de_Lion pointed out at point-13364 it is both common for services to make a statement of position that has no legal ramifications, and also often quite vague, meaning the ramifications are unclear and may not be strictly beneficial. The case should be reformulated to better express the desired value.

Agnes provided these case studies (heh) to consider:

  • (service-2309) explaining whether debates are allowed and if there are prohibited topics: point-9874 (approved)
  • Bitchute (service-513) defining what is considered offensive/harmful content: point-14744 (pending)
  • NatGeo (service-1742) showing a point of view about social, ethical or political problems: point-7768 (approved)
1 Like

I realise I neglected to offer my suggestions. I would say that the value in tracking any statement of this nonspecific kind is that if a service expresses a worldview antithetical to the user’s, that is a good signal that they should not use the service. Or conversely, if the service expresses an uncommonly-held belief that the user agrees with and thinks is relevant to the service-user relationship and/or important, they may wish to use that to choose between otherwise comparable services.

With that in mind, I’d say that the Bitchute example should be a different case, since it provides not just a perspective, but an actionable definition used in moderating the service. Possibly the example too. So a potential redrafting of the case might sound something like “the service offers a symbolic but nonbinding statement about a matter of opinion, ethics, society, or politics” with a low positive weight. I’d be interested to hear what other people would draft, however.

1 Like