To be fair, if that neighbor is using the toy to peep on my family in private areas of our own home, the neighbor kind of deserves to have the toy destroyed, no?

You’re a gross person and should feel bad about yourself.

If you argument is that there should be 100% editorial independence and that any breach of such independence is unacceptable, then you have to deal with exxxtreme examples.

Batman is the peak of human achievement. That’s why he wins. Because humans are awesome.

Nothing but set shots. Only picket fence on the inbound.

What’s wrong with Hoosiers? I’m honestly asking here—I wasn’t aware there was a backlash against this pretty universally beloved sports movie.

The owner and management of a website deciding what content was going to be published on their own website is not “censorship” under any reasonable definition.

Do yachts typically appreciate in value?

It would be socialism if the government gave the teams money.

Neither socialist nor capitalist. Cartelist.

The S&P also carries risk, which owning an NFL team does not. The most incompetent, buffoonish owners in the league see their franchises generate consistent revenue and the values on those franchises increase significantly year after year.

I don’t think the editorial and writing staff is made up (exclusively, or even a majority) of scumbags. There are some really, really interesting writers on these sites doing interesting work. (Jordan Sargent is vile little shit of a hack, but I think he’s the exception) Craggs and Read made a really, really bad…

You lost me.

You either believe in editorial independence, or you don’t.

Except this wasn’t a typical Gawker story, and it’s just disingenuous to pretend it was.

Wait, who is the “slimebag” in this scenario? The guy who thought that the story aiding a blackmailer to disclose potentially ruinous details of a non-public person’s sex life should be taken down, or the person who edited, posted, and defended said story?

I think your main mistake was to claim that something was “censorship” which was not under any reasonable definition.

You are portraying this as a case of one ad rep making the decision to pull a story because it made ad sales more difficult. This is not an accurate description. This was a wholly indefensible, vile story that made Gawker look terrible and did a lot of damage to the brand, and the senior management made the decision…

Neither “acting as the morality police” of your own website, nor pulling an article based on moral relativism and/or business interests on your own website is censorship.

But, it is different. Pulling a piece because it spoke ill of an advertiser is NOT the same thing as pulling a post because it contains nothing of legitimate public interest and it exposes embarrassing personal information about a private individual for no reason other than Gawker doesn’t like Reddit.