Blogger

Depending on which blogs you read, you may have seen notices that new policies from Blogger may shut down those that (sometimes) feature nudity unless the powers-that-be decide that "the content offers a substantial public benefit. For example, in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts." Blogger already posts Content Warning pages on blogs "they" have deemed dubious. 

We all know that there are blogs out there that are filled with images of dubious value and inappropriate for viewing by immature and impressionable minds. I have found, however, that Blogger often posts warning about gay blogs on which I have never seen any nudity, certainly no exposed genitalia, much less sex acts.

So the question is, as is always the case with censorship, who decides what is and is not "a substantial public benefit" -- Blogger editors, people who troll the blogosphere looking for a blog to denounce when it does not fit their preconceived notions about whatever, a computer program, who exactly?

My friend Michael once created two blogs as an experiment. He copied an article from mainstream media that had to do with homosexual rights. On one blog, he left the article as it was in the original,  using the word homosexual. On the other blog, he replaced the word homosexual each time with the word gay. That was the only change. The content was exactly the same and there were no images of any kind.

He then ran both blogs through a filter that was supposed to let him know if the blogs were considered appropriate. The one that used the word homosexual passed the test. The other failed. Obviously no one had looked at the two blogs. A computer program -- which had been set to fail gay blogs -- had made the decision. 

This would never stand up in a court of law, I suspect, as careful evaluation of content in search of "substantial public benefit."