not sure if you're intentionally comparing things like child porn to democracy as equally deserving of censorship but that's how i read it.
Yeah, on US tech platforms you can promote Taiwan's independence and criticize China's national interests, I'll give you that!
It's like the old joke, where the American says that he's free-er as he can go to Times Square with a bullhorn megaphone and openly criticize the US Predident.
To which the USSR guy counters that he's equally free, as he is also perfectly allowed to go to the Red Square and openly criticize the US Predident.
>not sure if you're intentionally comparing things like child porn to democracy as equally deserving of censorship but that's how i read it.
I wrote censoring based on "national interests" (not to mention petty political partisan censorship), but you took it that I was complaining about them censoring "child pornography". "Think of the children", much?
I don't think that censoring people from Snowden and wiki-leaks (banned on several instances, which corporations even disabling their way to accept donations), to people writing on the wrong side of the political and being banned for "fake news" (while the "legit" sources touted BS like the Steele Dossier, that now, years after it doesn't matter anymore, do a 180-turn on), amounts to "child porn".
Like, out of the millions of things one could somewhat legitimately censor, it's always CP..
... In the old definition of "proves" as in "tests," because any process that greenlights CP is wanting. So it's the one you go to as a litmus test for whether or not the question of censorship vs. open speech on the table is worth spending energy discoursing on.
kind of hilarious given the present context that where I come from, CP means Communist Party