You talk as if this isn't exactly what happened in the current framework of private censorship.
Even if abolishing private censorship would cause the scenario you outlined, that wouldn't be worse than the current situation and at least you'd solve the problem of pointless censorship.
This seems like a statement with nothing behind it but your confidence that it is truth. I believe that could be much worse than the current situation.
If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video. Sure, you can put labels agains poor judgement like they do on physical products.
It might not be 'the' fix but it could be 'a' fix. If your interest is preventing deaths that is.
The point is, for "a fix" of an issue we are trading things and I don't find it a good trade. Total unchallenged censorship is ot a good compromise to "save the kids".
Isn't it the case that the dangerous video was left up while the criticism was removed?
> How was the censorship pointless?
I'm talking specifically about private censorship.