I did media at uni (a long time ago now)
One of my lectures was about the degree of stuff they show on tv and what the editoral team had to decide was acceptable and what was not.
We got shown a bunch of unbroadcast footage and went through discussions about what was actually shown.
There was also discussion about what was shown on Al Jazeera and what the difference was.
There really was a cultural difference.
There were discussions over whether this was a good thing or whether it sanitised the world, and whether this led to differences in attitudes between countries. The argument was that, was it could lead to people thinking things were being deliberately hidden from them for political reasons - in a conspiray type way.
In the years since there has been a massive closing of the gap between the West and the Middle Eastern news challenges, largely driven by the instant nature of social media and how the roll of the editor making those censorship decisions has, to a large degree, effectively been made redunant as a result.
Culturally our broadcast channels still behind online media and do still make editoral decisions but quite a lot of what I was shown as 'unbroadcastable' probably would be shown today.
I think this is a hard adjustment and makes many of us more shocked because we haven't seen this in the past and its a new thing to us. Some people think its the world getting harsher or more dangerous too.
I get why we have had editing in the past and I have mixed views about whether this is a good or a bad thing.
If there is a 'live incident' twitter can be particularly unpleasant and it is really easy to come across stuff you don't want to see. I think you have to be aware of this to a degree and be careful what you search. I don't really think its avoidable given the nature of the platform unfortunately.