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.

Being completely disconnected from the killings you sponsor with your taxes is horrifying.

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.