The article pretends to be nuanced, while entirely ignoring how holding platforms liable for content published by others, and imposing no liability for erroneously censoring legal content, leads to over-censorship and chilling effects, not to mention deputizes private corporations to act as judge and jury on what speech is permitted.
In its world, the worst part about censorship [1] is that it's "not fun". Any concerns (never described except in the vaguest of terms) someone might have are dismissed confidently and without citing any evidence [2].
[1] The article never calls it "censorship" in its own words, only when quoting others. It only ever uses the mild, generic term "regulation".
[2] But decision-makers who consider the realities in their countries to develop reasonable regulations and also invest in longer-term, sustainable solutions—such as digital literacy—can chart a path that addresses the challenges of the day without compromising the democratic foundations they aim to protect.
like_any_other•6mo ago
In its world, the worst part about censorship [1] is that it's "not fun". Any concerns (never described except in the vaguest of terms) someone might have are dismissed confidently and without citing any evidence [2].
[1] The article never calls it "censorship" in its own words, only when quoting others. It only ever uses the mild, generic term "regulation".
[2] But decision-makers who consider the realities in their countries to develop reasonable regulations and also invest in longer-term, sustainable solutions—such as digital literacy—can chart a path that addresses the challenges of the day without compromising the democratic foundations they aim to protect.