I propose the following data to be a new case:
| Fields | Data |
|---|---|
| Name | Formal publications in the service are require approval from the government first |
| Description | In certain country, the censorship laws require certain publications to be censored before published and unapproved publications are prohibited to be published in the service. |
| Classification | blocker |
| Topic | Topic Suspension and Censorship (ToS;DR Phoenix) |
| Weight | 80 |
Iāll explain this since I think the description is not good enough.
In certain country (in this case, mainland China again), the government has prepared for laws requiring all entertainment productions being censored and approved before publication, such as video games (It is the main reason Steam China exists), and other entertainment productions. (Here [in Chinese] is the page for PDF of proposal of new law in mainland China tighten the censorship) āFormal publicationsā is unlike the user activities such as comments and likes. (as well as normal posts) I donāt know how to describe this and I need help. I can only say the worst case is all sharing of culture productions must be approved before appeared in the service.
For the Steam China, I think it employed different policies and therefore should not be merged into main Steam service mostly for reason above. Here is the proposal: Steam China
Lastly and personally, Iāll be off for some days and unable to give more suggestions. Since the heavily information control has created people who are willingly to destroy the openness of the Internet, please take care of ourselves in the Internet.
I think thats a good case! Weight fits good as well!
I agree with the creation of this case, but I think this shouldnāt be a blocker, since itās required by law for services in some countries and this censorship is applied at a governmental elvel (if I understood well, the service itself canāt choose whether a specific content is censored or approved without the government consent).
Also, we already have bad points and blockers that could fit with this situation (cases 379, 410 and 202). They donāt have exactly the same meaning (thatās why itās still worthy to create this case to cover this kind of censorship). However, a service could get assigned with all the points I mentioned above, along with this new case, which Iād say would penalize too much.
So Iād suggest making this case a bad point instead of a blocker.
I agree that this proposed case sounds similar to 379, 410 and 202. But, if I understand correctly, here the censorship comes before publication, not after. Is that right?
Sorry Iām late, but I think it is a good suggestion and Iāll edit it.
For KDās question, this applies to the censorship before publication. (For example, mainland China censorship agency has clearly said āå å®”åęā [Censorship first, then broadcast])
Well, itās still about user data right? I would not want to use such service where a government requires such level of censorship. Note: ToS;DR is for consumers not corporations 