It is organized censorship across a large part of media people use to communicate today. As a cooperation between governments and those companies.
It really doesnt need more then OPs comment, this is abhorrent. Its quite a big step towards an authoritarian society and the transformation into dictatorships.
In hindsight the generation of the anti-authoritarian left growing up after the fall of the USSR got rather careless with authoritarian tendencies on the left. Lessons learned my ass, here we go again.
Imagine the rules that are codified because of this being used by people to ideologically disagree with. Generally laws are very _very_ hard to get rid of.
I thought that (as an example) the pioneering video recording of the Vietnam war was essentially in shaping the US American public opinion on the war matter. I could be wrong, but it wasn't seen as something horrifying back then.
It's of course the actual murder which is horrifying.
The problem isn't the documentation, but how we as a global society chooses to work with those documents.
I'm not particularly deep into the issue, but I feel there must be something between glorifying it in some engagement-metric heavy filter bubble and making it an agenda to purge whole vaguely defined categories of content from the internet.
> an agenda to purge whole vaguely defined categories of content from the internet.
But that's not the agenda proposed at all. The agenda is to prevent violent extremism and terrorism promoting content from spreading on social media, not stopping war reporting.
I agree, but that's not really relevant to the discussion about extremism and online censorship.
Also I'm Irish, living in Ireland. Apart from maybe funding a health service that's not fit for purpose, it's a serious stretch to say that my taxes are sponsoring the killings of anyone.
It is, because without the "Collateral Damage" video, most people in the US wouldn't have been exposed to the horrors of what their tax dollars were doing at that time.
