Should Quora honour the commitments it has made publicly and eponymously?
(Improvements to Anonymity on Quora by Riley Patterson on The Quora Blog. Remember that name.)
In Riley’s sentence:
All anonymous content will be reviewed for spam and harassment before receiving distribution,
(remember, he put his name to that statement),
should “fairly dimwitted bot, of the caliber we can expect of Quora bots in the year 2017” be understood to be the subject of the weaselly passive, and a satisfactory level of review?
I’m sure Quora thinks Yes. Because they want this done on the cheap. The answer is still No.
Should Quora commit to vetting questions to decide if anonymity is appropriate or just trolling?
If this is the level of their vetting, better not to have made that undertaking at all.