I disagree strongly with his article. In *all* human interactions, the initial assumption of good intent is crucial, once you lose that, ...https://twitter.com/leeflower/status/913116034986643456 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Did you actually read the article? Even if 95% or 99% or even 100% have good intent, the rule is still a problem.
It implies someone harmed is wrong for complaining as long as the intent behind the harmful acts was ok.
I did read the article. The rule implies that one should assume good intent. Having good intent does not absolve from responsibilities.
I have seen people misconstrue carelessness or ignorance as malice too often. Correcting ones own bias toward seeing malice is important.
There's a German phrase roughly translated as "well-intentioned is often the opposite of well done". The problem is not asking people ...
... to check their bias, the problem is thinking good intent can be used to justify bad behavior.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.