| > a policy that dictates what content gets filtered to users is analogous to a parent forbidding a child from watching an age restricted movie. Which most people would agree is perfectly reasonable parenting. If there's an argument in here, I suppose it's that a content platform is entering into a paternal relationship with its participants. But that really isn't what's happening when it comes to the relationship between adults and participants on such a platform isn't a paternal one, it's more like guests at a house. Anyone would be perfectly within their rights and might well have reasonable justifications for controlling what kind of media or other expressions are welcome in their home or other environments that are under their stewardship. There are drawbacks to limiting expression. Your example of the visceral impact of watching violence piercing apathy is a reasonable point. But it's equally reasonable to suggest that the apathy has other sources (there are other causes of psychological distance), that there are diminishing returns to explicitly portraying violence (most people already believe that killing except in self-defense is wrong), and of course there appear to be real negative impacts as discussed in the article. > IMHO, people should at least be presented with the option to see what is getting filtered rather than selectively suppressing objectionable material lest society remain indifferent.. This is almost reasonable. The problem is that the material itself is only a primary concern. Secondary effects include encouraging other participants to doxx, engage in violent threats, etc. You're not just selecting material, you're creating a set of expectations for how civilized people are. Perhaps there should be unfiltered forums; I certainly wouldn't stop anyone from creating one. But general social media platforms should probably reflect some norms of civil societies their members are drawn from, as well as whatever additional values their owners may hold. |