[ChuckNorris89]

>Social media platforms like TikTok and Snapchat will face possible shutdowns when they don't crack down on problematic content

Ok, and who defines what exactly is "problematic content"? Let me guess, it's gonna be whatever the government wants silenced.

>"When there is hateful content, content that calls – for example – for revolt, that also calls for killing and burning of cars, they will be required to delete [the content] immediately,"

Aha, but if I invite 100k people to a meeting in the city center next to the parliament building for a peaceful protest, that will be fine and not get removed, right? Right?

[moring]

An optimistic view would be that courts decide what is right and wrong. They are supposed to be independent of both the government and the parliament, and if you fear a dystopian future where they aren't, shutting down TikTok isn't going to be our biggest problem.

[ChuckNorris89]

I don't get your comment. The police can come break up mass gatherings without consulting with the courts first.

[gmerc]

You’d be surprised that if you show pornography or gore porn in public, the police can and will take you down in the US too without a court order.

So what defines problematic content? The law.

[justinclift]

"Uneven application of the law" is generally what people seem to have issues with.

[gettodachoppa]

I don't understand how you can question this, are you trying to stop our government from being able to fight right-wing Russian misinformation trolls? With attitudes like that, Ukraine will lose.

Upvotes to the left, folks.

[ChuckNorris89]

Ah yes, the invisible boogieman, Russian online trolls, the reason we should all give up our rights, "for your safety". "but think of the children".