3 ms·
The difference are that all of those are pre-determined, so you know what violates the rule. Holding platforms accountable for "harmful" content is much more su
by vimota 3y ago
The difference are that all of those are pre-determined, so you know what violates the rule. Holding platforms accountable for "harmful" content is much more subjective and case-by-case than a speed limit, drinking and driving and ingredient rules.
- sandworm101 3y agoAs opposed to all the other content rules out there? The limits on harmful pornography? Hate speech? Violence? Animal cruelty? Western governments already regulate/censor lots of content subject to interpretation. Balling those together under the banner of "harmful" for the purposes of regulating online platforms doesn't seem much of a stretch.
- Aerroon 3y agoThe implementation of those other regulations is a reason to be against this. Platforms are usually very heavy-handed with moderation of those. Look at how people are on their tiptoes on YouTube and TikTok. Content creators straight up refuse to use common words because it might trigger an algorithm. And that isn't even due to government regulation.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoHate speech, violence, and animal cruelty related internet content isn’t highly restricted though. CP is basically the only exception I think applies here. For the most part, viewing and putting heinous things online is perfectly legal.