[logicalmonster]

> Not really - it shows nuanced understanding that some content by itself / with a small audience doesn't cause harm, but the company doesn't not want to amplify it. Protects peoples speech but also declines to promote them to a bigger audience.

Putting aside the issue of what specific content causes harm or not (which is a very contentious issue), my issue with this kind of justification is that it puts mega-corporations in a position to have their cake and eat it too.

With a straight face, depending on their audience, Google can claim to both not be censoring content at the same time as they're claiming to be censoring content. This feels like they're putting themselves in a position to walk a legal tightrope on what they're actually doing and flout any laws they want.