A small portion of the public will react to almost anything in any way. The censorship regime here must surely have been created by more complex factors, like m

A small portion of the public will react to almost anything in any way. The censorship regime here must surely have been created by more complex factors, like maybe: - Dependence on advertising, exposure to advertisers who feel like their brands appearing next to anything controversial or upsetting will negative-halo upon their brand. - Ideological uniformity amongst journalists, who highlight certain kinds of outrage and sink others. - A need for moral validation amongst tech company employees. And we could think of many others. Trying to distill a root cause is hard but it looks like the everything-is-connected-to-everything mentality appears frequently. Is it really the case that an advert appearing next to something objectionable makes people think less of the brand? Probably not but it seems to be a common belief. Is it really the case that Facebook is to blame for any video posted on its platform? Probably not but it's a common belief. In a thread just a few days ago there was a former Twitter employee arguing that Facebook was somehow complicit or at fault in the Rohingya genocide, which is a good example of this mentality. You could go even deeper and ask, is this everyone-is-culpable-for-everything mentality a genuine belief, or is it a possibly sub-conscious cover for some other agenda? That is, this argument seems to work on people sometimes, so it is deployed a useful tool to advance one ideology or another? Who can really say.