I raised that example to illustrate the problem with censorship as a social engineering tool, there seems to be a lack of nuance around the question.
People talk as if the question of whether to censor is identical to whether there are viewpoints that are harmful. That's the wrong question IMHO, of course some viewpoints are harmful. Harmful enough that it would be better if they weren't shared, we can all imagine some. Censorship is like torture, we shouldn't swear it off because it doesn't work, but because the benefit we gain from using it is miniscule compared to the harm received when it's used on us.
The George Floyd video is a clear case in point. How many people who were happy to see #45 removed from social media would have been dismayed if the George Floyd video had been similarly removed for the sake of public order? How much benefit did they gain from their enemy being off the platforms compared to the harm it would have done to them if the same tool had been used against them?
Society progresses in proportion to the number of uncomfortable conversations. Because they are uncomfortable, we can all be tempted by people flattering us that we don't need to have them. Therefore, it's a tool that tends to be overused. As such, it should be one that reasonable people of all tribes can agree is a sign of hypocrisy, an opportunity for grandstanding when employed by the other side and soul-searching when employed by our own.
Yeah, it's a good point. There is however a problem when lies and tribalism take over the agenda, rather than fairness and justice for all. The laws and rule must apply to all, so we must resist unfair special treatment (and you may see this regards to all). The very notion of sides, is false (ie. right vs left).
So bribes, threats, falsehoods, abuse need to be exposed for what it is.
