> may cause harm

Literally anything can be argued to be "harmful."

As an example, some people consider GOTO statements to be harmful.

Or more precisely; some people don't. /s

Actually that's a good analogy.

If there weren't people that blindly accepting it as the truth and verified everything this wouldn't be bad, in fact would be good because it could drive attention to something that perhaps was ignored.

Unfortunately large part of population has no idea how to do fact checking, and what's worse many take their news from the Facebook.

I imagine YouTube removing C tutorials because they "encourage harmful behaviors"

Well at least the government isn't mandating that all "harmful" content be taken off the web...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/online-ha...

(For what it's worth, the proposed law now refers to "safety" rather than "harms").

>Germany

>UK

Maybe that's why their challenge failed.

> the video may cause harm

Or let me try, is “hateful”?

Yeah. That about clears it up, I guess. Clear as mud.

A knife can do even more harm to the user, but they are still sold. "Can do harm" is a slippery slope.

That appears to be largely what Germany thinks as well.

Recipe for chilli sauce may cause harm. It's not a good argument.

Yeah that's probably why it lost.