Surely there's some difference between text that a human wrote with some purpose, even a nefarious one, and an AI writing text with complete amorality. To lump those two things together is missing the point entirely. When I read the writings of a human that I suspect might be derogatory or objectionable in nature, I can look that person up and get a better understanding of their world view, their politics, their past writings, and so on. I can build context around the words they're uttering. With an AI, there's no plausible mechanism to do that. Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of people are not skeptical of plausible-sounding falsehoods. And it's made 100 times worse when there's no mechanism for such a person to research what is being uttered. The vast majority of "objectionable" (if you want to call that) human writing is, at the very least, sensible in some context, and it's possible to learn that context to make an informed judgement. It's just simply not the case with AI. And when there's a media brand sitting at the top of the page, and there are advertisements, and it's in the news, and when there's trillions (?) in financial backing -- sorry, people are going to take what comes out of these systems at face value. That much is proven.

Personally I'm fine with zero censorship of generative AI. But then ban advertising about it, ban making false, unproveable claims about how great it is, require prominent legal warnings, make it much easier to sue companies whose AI systems produce negative societal outcomes, prohibit any kind of trademark or copyright on AI-generated material, and so on. But of course, nobody wants to do any of that, because that would ruin the cash cow. This isn't a censorship-gone-awry story. It's a story of companies trying their best to convince regulatory authorities to leave them alone.