>The problems with comments like this is that you assume that your right to be exposed to objectionable content usurps the rights of people who don’t and the co

>The problems with comments like this is that you assume that your right to be exposed to objectionable content usurps the rights of people who don’t and the company itself. How can someone have a right not to be exposed to something they will have to willfully look for and have actions for such exposure? That's why I say: if the problem is the possibility of exposure (the absurdity), just paywall the damn thing, then no one can "trip over" a 3 hour podcast and sit around to listen to it. >They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for. Well that content was published and had views/listeners, so at some point in time that content was up to standard. If they are going to be liable for it, they should be liable since the day it was published. That's why I thought of the idea of doing it under a pay wall, so only users that are actively paying for will be subject to that content censorship. Or simply don't publish content until it's vetted and approved. Another idea: have space for contrarian points of views within the video/podcast.