We have engaged with your argument. You just can't seem to understand that this is a domino falling into a field of dominos, not a barren desert. You don't think this will be cited by others? At the bottom of the document, they cite the university lists from that fed into this one. These are dominos, and they are not alone.
Where? I’ve read all the replies. How is Stanford deciding what should be used on their sites different from how Coke decides how its logo can be used?
> You just can't seem to understand that this is a domino falling into a field of dominos, not a barren desert.
I understand all of that. So at best your argument is that this is a slippery slope. Moving past the fallacious nature of that argument, you still haven’t articulated any conceivable harm to you or society. Even if all of the dominoes you foresee fall, then where are we? Are you restricted by government thought police at that point, and that’s what you’re worried about?
Or are you worried about your employer restricting your speech? If so, I refer you to my Coke argument; you are already subject to a list of words approved by your employer. The only difference maybe is that it’s implicit, but that doesn’t make it any different than what Stanford has here (except less transparent and delivered by capriciously by fiat instead of created by the community with input from across the company).
What does it matter to you if some dominoes are falling elsewhere?
