Given the furor on Youtube over the new COPPA laws and the way they will affect content creators, I'd sort of like to know the opinions of tildezens on the topic of digital regulation. What do you guys think about heavy moderation or even censorship on social media platforms? Do you think it's a necessary way to keep online communities safe for all, or is it stifling open discussion on the internet?

(Not sure if should be placed in here or tech, please don't flame)

(Let me make this clear before you continue reading, I don't know any good solutions)

Recently, all over the internet, I feel like I am seeing more and more companies filtering out content that are considered hate speech. I personally do not like this for two reasons.

1. I think it is a band-aid solution. People who have their voice taken away from themselves are not suddenly going to change their mind.
2. In a way, it is a form of removing freedom of speech. Now, I understand that a lot of the companies that are censoring hate speech are doing it primarily for the sake of sponsors, but I mean this in a more broad scope.
3. It is effectively hiding societal problems.

I think one argument for the increased censorship is: even if it doesn't combat hate speech, it stops the spreading of hate speech. By spreading, I mean more people believing that hate speech. Though at first this could be a good idea, I think it is the wrong way to go about it. I really don't know what exactly is the right way to deal with this issue. Maybe more inclusion of different communities? Maybe education? Learn how to think critically?

Here are a couple other things I have been thinking about, but I am not too sure about. I do not know if they are true or not, but if any of you could provide more insight, I would like to know more:

1. Hate speech is actually lower than ever. The reason why some people feel like it is higher is because the hate speech is entering to people's bubbles through the internet. Before the internet, there was still that kind of talk, it was just in a different medium.
2. Though not hate speech, but in a way related, with Anti-vax, the people who are most susceptible to converting to an anti-vaxxer, are parents. A lot of times these are the people who didn't grow up with the internet, the way they view the internet is not exactly how younger people view the internet. There is more doubt in what we see online between younger people than older.

And I have had people say I must be a white upper class person to have these kinds of opinions. No. I am not white. Not upper class. I have dealt with racism in one way or another for all of my childhood, less so as an adult.

Personally, free speech to me means that while platforms like Facebook and YouTube are not required to host it, if they so choose to host it they should be able to do so. Speech should not be restricted because it is offensive or because it is viewed as immoral. This applies doubly so to political speech, which terrorism is the most extreme form.

I'm curious to see what the public consensus towards the site is nowadays. They have been controversial since their inception, but no matter what you think of them, there is no denying that the information they've released has sparked massive debate around the world.

As we've seen, Apple has shown it's willingness to agree with the Chinese government's wishes several times. First by not allowing users of it's Chinese app store to download VPNs, then taking Skype off the Mainland China app store, as well as handing over control of Chinese iCloud operations to a Chinese firm, and also by removing apps with call kit in them from the Chinese app store.

Now, we should also note that Apple makes quite a bit of money from China. According to Apple's latest earnings call [PDF] for Q1 2018, they made $17.956 billion from China. So, this strategy seems to be working.

Discussion Questions

In what ways are Apple accommodating the Chinese government a necessity?

In this case, or others, when should Apple take into consideration the desires of their customers over their investors?

What problems can be had from accommodating China, but not being so accommodating to other governments?

What can other companies learn from Apple's dealing with the Chinese government?

You may have heard that Roseanne Barr made a horrible comment/joke on her Twitter account - this lead to the cancelation of her show, Rosanne.

Then, Samantha Bee made a horrible comment/joke on her show about Ivanka Trump that has prompted an apology, and an advertiser exit (so far).

If Samantha Bee is canceled too, does the punishment fit? Did Rosanne deserve to see her show canceled? Is there (or should there be) a limit to what comedians can say on TV or online?

Note: Typed this out on mobile, so may need corrections later. Edit: Added links, corrections. Edit again, update Bee's details.