Censorship is a major problem in the world today, and encouraging more of it is something we need to be wary of.

I don’t see how the platform should be responsible without opening up a can of worms involving censorship.

Seeing as he was an active participant in it, this is the core of my questioning. Why is it considered ‘something others did to him’, and not ‘something he did to himself’? He could have left at any time, but he chose to stay and remain in the activity.

However I’m unclear that it’s actually illegal. Morally reprehensible, but morality is a very subjective opinion and one I’m very hesitant to let platforms start deciding on my behalf.

Nobody has ever denied that censorship can sometimes be good. The problem has always been who gets to decide when it’s good and when it isn’t?

Yeah, I don’t see how they’re responsible either, but I’m getting lots of emotional replies and nobody actually seems to want to admit they’re advocating censorship.

The argument against them, as I understand it, is that they should not have allowed the streaming to happen. As this was pre-death, that would have required them to make a decision about what content they allowed that most people would consider censorship.

nah, fam, I get your discussion points. I just think they’re shitty fucking points and you sound like some MAGA chud whining about censorship.