Why don't they clearly say who and why they agree and disagree with filtering platforms and content?

Farhikhtegan newspaper wrote:

There is no hope for access to the Internet with the desired quality; The issue that was addressed was one of the president's frequent promises during the election, but we continue to follow the news of the internet quality drop under the heavy shadow of filtering.

An important part of people's dissatisfaction with filtering policies is related to the lack of transparency in its declaration part. One of the problems of filtering is its opaqueness. It is not clear in which session and with which resolution the cases that the committee for determining criminal cases filters. Where is the text of the resolution and what were its conditions and who agreed and who opposed it? These are not clear and must be clarified in legal processes.