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:
- lib.reviews (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)