4 ms·

I'm not sure we are in disagreement. > In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office". So without regulati

I'm not sure we are in disagreement. > In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office". So without regulation the content platforms are free to make up their own rules and remove any content they consider unsuitable for their audience. In the article a regulatory framework is proposed for ad supported platforms. The responsibility is taken away from the platform. You now have a situation where the regulatory entity will either need to allow people advocating for things like pedophilia or other "uncomfortable things" or otherwise introduces censorship for it. It's a double edged sword.

close04 8y ago
There’s regulation applying to YT or FB and then there’s regulation for everyone. So the fact that ads now support a certain model and in theory you could start promoting terrorism doesn’t mean the general laws don’t apply. So the hypothetical pro-terrorism or pro child abuse article would go up because it’s not censored, it would catch traction because it enjoys the support of some, it would then be taken down because the laws prohibit such speech in general, and finally the original poster suffers the consequences of breaking the law. Censorship is done before the fact. Like banning a song before launch because it’s insulting the supreme leader. Doing it after the fact because it violates a law (TBH I presume there’s a law prohibiting the promotion of pedophilia or terrorism...) is not censorship.