What’s the point here though?
America et al also don’t like certain things being published on social media and try stop it from existing on those platforms too.
America et al also don’t like certain things being published on social media and try stop it from existing on those platforms too.
Even child porn isn't an easy subject. Everyone can agree that liking 12 year olds sexually is pedophilia and images about that are child porn. But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia.
And that's just (north western) Europe who are culturally very similar to the US.
It's not muddier. The issue isn't the nature of the people viewing the content, but the ability of the victim to consent to the creation of the content. There's no muddiness involved here - sexual exploitation of minors for the production of media is not ok.
For 12 year olds it's much easier with the "we don't support pedophilia" argument (which has wide support)
In the latter case, is child pornography probably indicative of a crime? Absolutely. But banning the images and their dissemination is clearly an infringement of free speech. In the former, banning hate speech is also clearly an infringement of free speech. If someone's actions result in violence or death then punish them after, and divorced from the issue of speech; do not place prior restraint on speech.
They were surprised you could do that...
There is even an old soviet joke about this.
An American tells a Russian that the United States is so free he can stand in front of the White House and yell, “To hell with Ronald Reagan.” The Russian replies, “That’s nothing. I can stand in front of the Kremlin and yell, ‘To hell with Ronald Reagan,’ too.”
Also, we are allowed to post photos with breasts (and much more) on our social network Vkontakte.
Now try to acquire a popular social media app in USA.