So NZ has laws that censor some content, and an official office of the censor that decides which things are illegal and which are not - for example the snuff film made by the Aussie terrorist in Christchurch is illegal in NZ, even though Elon has let it return to Twitter it's still illegal for Twitter (or Facebook) to show it in NZ.
You may disagree with censorship, or with what should censored, but most western countries still have censorship laws and media companies need to honour them.
If you disagree with the laws in your country, go out and change them, that's what democracy is all about. But you don't get to change other countries' laws.
Companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc that want to provide international services need to actively honour ALL the laws in the countries that the operate in - those laws may be contradictory, if a movie can be shown in country A but not country B needs then they need to make sure that can't happen or else they are in legal peril - having a portal that a country can use to declare what is illegal in that country is probably a great idea, the alternative is for say Facebook having an employee who spends all their time monitoring the output of a country's censorship office.
Such a portal can be abused, obviously we don't want governments just banning random stuff they don't like, rather than the process of an independent process like NZ's Censor's office, equally we probably don't want to publish the things that are being reported ("look over here, that's where all the child porn is"), I think this is a difficult are - perhaps we should make what's reported here open, but only in categories without giving URLs/details
The problem is such laws can, and will, be used to self-perpetuate.
For example: In Brazil the constitution says you have free speech and the right to criticize government officials...
Yet the judiciary branch, although often they rule it is free speech when someone criticize lawmaker, will happily say it is NOT free speech when someone criticize a judge.
Cue most recent elections, not wanting to enter in the merits of who deserves to be president, but one obvious case of abuse of office happened when the supreme court ruled that a retired member of the court should be censored and that reporting any news about this subject should be censored too, all because that retired member explained the technical legal details of a past decision, and the supreme court decided that even though everything he said was factual, correct and true, it "could be used for misinformation" and thus should be censored.
Western censorship laws tend to be really old, New Zealand's had such a law since 1857 (around about when we first started passing laws, before that the UK's probably applied) - and are largely aimed at obscenity (not political discourse)
I'd challenge you to show where the NZ Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act allows censorship because of a particular political point of view
It looks like most of the political censorship in NZ was to suppress anti-war publications, which has been less of an issue since that particular law was passed. Other censorship laws blocked movies like All Quiet on the Western Front as well as communist publications.
The only political point of view I've noticed that was censored under that particular act (based on 5 minutes of perusing Wikipedia) was supporting euthanasia, which is illegal in NZ
How would you or me know they didn't sensor political speech on Facebook or another social media platform?
Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Is the publisher of content on social media being notified they are censored in NZ ? Do they have a right to appeal ? How will they appeal if they don't get notified ? Is the appeal process simple and inexpensive enough for independent content creator to avail ?
For censorship to work, the system of censorship should be very objective, clear and transparent and with avenues for inexpensive recourse.
NZ and all commonwealth countries which have similar systems are not close to that. These are system as you say were not designed for social media so have no business censoring social media unless they have adapted ( which they have not). Inefficient bureaucracy also suppresses free speech not just conservative or authoritative regimes.
As you can imagine, most of the decisions seem to be focused on CSAM. But it also lists non-video censorship.
I'm not sure I'd call it highly visible, but it's very easy to find and search. I have no idea what the disputes process looks like, but I'd be shocked if they didn't have one.
Can you make the same case using a country sharing a similar lack of public sector corruption with New Zealand? New Zealand consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries, Brazil not so much: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
The key word is operate. If you operate in a country you have to follow its laws. If you run a business as a single entity you only have to follow the laws of the country there it is based.
Why? Because the jurisdiction of foreign countries ends at their border.
My products are sold globally but are probably illegal in many places. I don't give a flying fuck about complying with another countries laws. For example, one of my businesses is illegal in China, do I self censor it to prevent having Chinese customers? No, if any Chinese break the law using my products - that's on them, it's their choice, I give them the power to do what they want.
Facebook does operate in NZ but it's unclear whether this company is responsible for the public facing product, or is just reselling advertising from a seperate company. It could be dissolved tomorrow and nothing would happen because NZ isn't going to block Facebook like Iran or Egypt.
The NZ government has no legal or defacto control over what happens on Facebook.
> If you run a business as a single entity you only have to follow the laws of the country there it is based.
That train of thought hasn't worked out well for a lot of business people running, say, online gambling that violates US law, while based in Bermuda. They often get detained in transit through the the US.
If you want to operate in a market, you have to obey the laws of the nation governing that market. Otherwise, you don't get to.
In New Zealand it does - The Harmful Digital Communications act provides a safe harbour provided someone like Facebook participates in helping deal with abusive content, and takes it down where appropriate
Again, as I said above, countries can pass their own laws - that's what gives them the legal right to do stuff - equally Facebook is free not to do business in any country they like
You may disagree with censorship, or with what should censored, but most western countries still have censorship laws and media companies need to honour them.
If you disagree with the laws in your country, go out and change them, that's what democracy is all about. But you don't get to change other countries' laws.
Companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc that want to provide international services need to actively honour ALL the laws in the countries that the operate in - those laws may be contradictory, if a movie can be shown in country A but not country B needs then they need to make sure that can't happen or else they are in legal peril - having a portal that a country can use to declare what is illegal in that country is probably a great idea, the alternative is for say Facebook having an employee who spends all their time monitoring the output of a country's censorship office.
Such a portal can be abused, obviously we don't want governments just banning random stuff they don't like, rather than the process of an independent process like NZ's Censor's office, equally we probably don't want to publish the things that are being reported ("look over here, that's where all the child porn is"), I think this is a difficult are - perhaps we should make what's reported here open, but only in categories without giving URLs/details