> We cannot trust Google to behave in the public interest (information about human rights abuses qualifies in my mind) when it conflicts with their own interest

> We cannot trust Google to behave in the public interest (information about human rights abuses qualifies in my mind) when it conflicts with their own interests. Hence people's dismay over the amount of control they wield over the distribution of information. Assuming that people do want some level of censorship, profit motive actually ends up being the most fair. If enough people are angry about this, Google will change their policy. Social media treat the control they have on information as more of a burden than an asset, as it should be. They would love to have an authoritative doctrine or committee that they can point their fingers to when someone disagrees with their decision of whether or not to censor something. In fact, Facebook spent $130 million dollars establishing a content "supreme court" in an attempt to do that. However, people are naturally even more skeptical of anyone who wants the responsibility of moderating billions of hours of content. > Do you think a news org that wiped coverage of Uighur repression from its site to protect its business in China wouldn't face similar outrage? I don't think this is a fair comparison. This describes removing a dozen videos that showed IDs and asked them to blur out. News organizations also have very strict rules on what journalists can publish, which many would consider to be arbitrary. Pulling a pro-Uighur article for not following those rules does not deserve outrage either.