What's Missing in the Debate on Online Freedom of Expression in US, Brazil

The article pretends to be nuanced, while entirely ignoring how holding platforms liable for content published by others, and imposing no liability for erroneously censoring legal content, leads to over-censorship and chilling effects, not to mention deputizes private corporations to act as judge and jury on what speech is permitted.

In its world, the worst part about censorship [1] is that it's "not fun". Any concerns (never described except in the vaguest of terms) someone might have are dismissed confidently and without citing any evidence [2].

[1] The article never calls it "censorship" in its own words, only when quoting others. It only ever uses the mild, generic term "regulation".

[2] But decision-makers who consider the realities in their countries to develop reasonable regulations and also invest in longer-term, sustainable solutions—such as digital literacy—can chart a path that addresses the challenges of the day without compromising the democratic foundations they aim to protect.