Whilst this BBC article in and of itself is in no way related to Pizzagate, I thought I'd share it because it draws stark comparisons to the debate I've seen here and there regarding the obscure art which might appeal to the likes of John Podesta.

I've seen people arguing that there is nothing wrong or illegal about art which depicts child erotica, even though the FBI might strongly disagree. People have suggested that it is simply a matter of expression, and thus the freedom to express. It's probably okay for somebody to artistically express themselves in an unorthodox manner if they were abused as a child, which is seemingly the case for one particular artist whose name now escapes me (I'm sure somebody will know straight away who I'm talking about), but displaying that art does, in my humble opinion, have serious moral implications.

So then, for a company which is so happy to push this "fake news" agenda to the point of developing AI to identify terroristic or suicidal posts ^[1][2], in other words that very technology could be used to further suppress freedom of speech as they have clearly been doing - would they thus agree that the type of art which Podesta is keen on would breach their Terms & Conditions?

I find this quite an interesting dilemma for companies such as Facebook, who on the one hand are overly politically correct whilst at other times politically motivated.

Relevant article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39099726

This has been marked as "NSFW" due to the image on the BBC link depicting naked women.