I think this comment is underrated. Even using the term "censorship" is somewhat dubious when/if the "censor" is acting against the interests/wishes of governme

I think this comment is underrated. Even using the term "censorship" is somewhat dubious when/if the "censor" is acting against the interests/wishes of government. That said, I think google are making a bad mistake here. They've crossed a line that they've been toeing. Social media isn't just a mass media. Media is always edited. Editing isn't censorship. But social media is also a communication channel. Haphazard interference in a communication channel sits wrong. We have no frame of reference for it. Meanwhile, there are credible claims that social media fallacies have caused horrible things (including possibly genocide in Myanmar) in other countries/languages. FB (in that case) has no knowledge of the language or interest in getting involved in that. How can you justify one without the other?