It is so interesting to see various country approaches to the flow of information, i.e. internet regulation.
At its foundation, the idea amounts to ‘there exists information that is dangerous and it is our job to protect them (the people).’
Based on the range of human abilities, few could argue against the idea that ‘there exists dangerous information’ (that is dangerous to some people).
In the U.S. those on the left are asking corporations to protect people by banning ‘dangerous information’
In China, the CCP has spend a large percentage of their GDP and has defined almost all information not related to consumerism and good manners as ‘dangerous’
In France, this.
If everyone were perfect, there would be no dangerous information, because people would be able to read things in perfect context. That will never happen.
At its foundation, the idea amounts to ‘there exists information that is dangerous and it is our job to protect them (the people).’
Based on the range of human abilities, few could argue against the idea that ‘there exists dangerous information’ (that is dangerous to some people).
In the U.S. those on the left are asking corporations to protect people by banning ‘dangerous information’
In China, the CCP has spend a large percentage of their GDP and has defined almost all information not related to consumerism and good manners as ‘dangerous’
In France, this.
If everyone were perfect, there would be no dangerous information, because people would be able to read things in perfect context. That will never happen.