[rhn_mk1]

By this logic, we could decide to censor violence, religion, social media, subcultures, sugar, the study of chemistry, and perhaps coffeine. I don't think it's a blind spot. It's a deliberate decision not to be overprotective. Should it be the government's responsibility to censor anything that people easily get into with bad consequences?

[midoridensha]

>By this logic, we could decide to censor violence, religion, social media, subcultures, sugar, the study of chemistry, and perhaps coffeine.

I totally agree: "coffeine" should definitely be banned or restricted. Caffeine from tea, however, is fine.

[inDigiNeous]

I'm not saying it should be the governments responsibility.

And governments are already heavily censoring and trying to kill child pornography, religion and certain political views, so why would this be so different ?

It should be our responsibility as humans and parents to protect our children. If we are not thinking about our children and protecting them from content that could be potentially life changing and addictive for the rest of their lives, why are we not stepping up to the plate and doing that ?

[rhn_mk1]

The government's responsibility is that the government passes the laws to censor things, not that it does the dirty work of actual censorship.

Censoring religion and political views is regarded as a violation of human rights, so while this is different, I do agree that it should be treated the same.

I agree with the need to protect people from bad influences, but the government is not the only entity that's capable of protecting. Traditionally, that role has also been fulfilled by the social network and the person in question themselves. I don't see the urge to shove it all off on the government, except in cases where the social network is failing to protect, e.g. in the cases of crime.

There's a balance to be hit between the ability to take risk and the negative consequences. Best example is personal vehicles which cause life changing consequences when they go wrong, sometimes ending lives altogether, and doing this reliably to thousands of people every year.

[GoblinSlayer]

>why would this be so different ?

That's literal slippery slope. What is different?

[marak830]

"And governments are already heavily censoring and trying to kill child pornography, religion and certain political views, so why would this be so different ?"

Child pornography: of course! Religion: ... What ? Which ones? Certain political views: of course we ban Nazis... That's what you meant right?

[inDigiNeous]

I did not mean Nazis. Have you even followed the censorship in Twitter for example and the situation that is unraveling now ?

We already ban certain views, but yet, pornography: no. It's not important enough, and as seen here by the downvotes, many people are addicted to it and cannot understand what I tried to message.