[Vinnl]

Absolutely, more transparency there would be great. But you said:

> Apparently the dissemination of illegal content refers to the October 7th videos of the Hamas terrorist attack against Israel that galvanized American support for Israel

...which does not to me seem to be a conclusion you can draw from a lack of evidence.

[lhnz]

I think they intend for their tactics to cause damage, but I do not think that they have set forwards reasonable evidence for their proceedings, or even been clear what they consider illegal or whether it's merely a case of them disallowing automated moderation tools.

When they said "dissemination of illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel" I can only assume that it refers to the October 7th attack by Hamas upon Israel and not to another attack.

Of course, it could refer to a specific video posted during this time period that they consider to be disinformation, however, taking action against a singular video would be quite over-the-top which is why I believe they're referring to the overall dissemination of videos around this time.

[Vinnl]

Oh, I think it's absolutely clear that they're referring to those attacks. However, you said that they didn't want footage of those attacks in general to be spread, rather than misinformation about those attacks.

So as far as I know, it would probably have been fine to share videos showing eg the damage to a hospital, but not to post a deepfake showing Oprah planning the destruction of a hospital.