I wasn't making normative claims; I was being descriptive.
The politicians object to the fact that so many filters are under the control of one entity, which isn't them.
I'd also point out that there was an Internet prior to Facebook, and if anything, I'd actually call it incrementally less of a cesspool. Without everybody piled into one big room it was way easier to carve out a view of the Internet that wasn't so full of concentrated crap. Lots of people keeping their own bits of the net clean to their standards worked for me.
Now I will be normative. I see the Internet as a reflection and a consequence of society. To say that you're going to, say, eliminate all child porn from the Internet is saying that you're going to eliminate all child porn from the world. I mean that very literally; no metaphor. You can't do the former with anything less than what it would take to do the latter, and there's no reason to believe that's possible.
You can't solve this problem with filters. It doesn't matter whether that truth is a good thing or not, it simply is the truth. Your text casually assumes the filters are effective, and thus offers a seemingly unresolvable dilemma about "why do you want so much child porn on the internet, jerf?" but the filters are not effective. So, given the filters can't do those things, but can do other things, it's unsurprisingly that the politicians take an interest in this.
This is really just the old question "why can't the government solve all the problems with more regulation and more people looking over more shoulders?" translated into digital terms, and the answer is, by the time the government is large enough to do that, the people the government has to be made out of have brought the problems in with them, only now they're where they can hide themselves easily.
Somewhat reducing CP is good, even if you don't eliminate it completely.
> the filters are not effective
Using your chosen example, there is very little CP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. That's prima facie evidence that filters can be effective, even if they're less than 100% effective.
> why can't the government solve all the problems with more regulation
I'm starting to see the theme of your argument now. If X achieves less than 100% perfection, then we should eliminate X, whether X is content filtering or government regulation.
Some drivers fail to stop at red lights and stop signs, causing accidents and injuries. But few people would agree to eliminate red lights and stop signs. Even though they're flawed, they are better than nothing at busy intersections.
The politicians object to the fact that so many filters are under the control of one entity, which isn't them.
I'd also point out that there was an Internet prior to Facebook, and if anything, I'd actually call it incrementally less of a cesspool. Without everybody piled into one big room it was way easier to carve out a view of the Internet that wasn't so full of concentrated crap. Lots of people keeping their own bits of the net clean to their standards worked for me.
Now I will be normative. I see the Internet as a reflection and a consequence of society. To say that you're going to, say, eliminate all child porn from the Internet is saying that you're going to eliminate all child porn from the world. I mean that very literally; no metaphor. You can't do the former with anything less than what it would take to do the latter, and there's no reason to believe that's possible.
You can't solve this problem with filters. It doesn't matter whether that truth is a good thing or not, it simply is the truth. Your text casually assumes the filters are effective, and thus offers a seemingly unresolvable dilemma about "why do you want so much child porn on the internet, jerf?" but the filters are not effective. So, given the filters can't do those things, but can do other things, it's unsurprisingly that the politicians take an interest in this.
This is really just the old question "why can't the government solve all the problems with more regulation and more people looking over more shoulders?" translated into digital terms, and the answer is, by the time the government is large enough to do that, the people the government has to be made out of have brought the problems in with them, only now they're where they can hide themselves easily.