To protect is always the initial goal, and directly dangerous videos are the low hanging fruits. I'd say "viral videos" are too recent to be part of History ye

To protect is always the initial goal, and directly dangerous videos are the low hanging fruits. I'd say "viral videos" are too recent to be part of History yet, but shutting down a dangerous viral video is not very far from "banning immoral content", which is not very far itself from "banning hate speech". It's not that easy to draw a line because it is a continuum. Consensus and censorship is what many countries do: People vote for MPs, MPs vote laws against hate speech, pornography, etc. Or at least how it's supposed to work on the paper. The same way, we could decide for laws against media that propagates misinformation - and a judge would decide. We could do that. The tools are on the workbench, why we can't use them is another problem.