If Facebook decided to, it could gradually remove any pro-Trump stories or media off its site—devastating for a campaign that runs on memes and publicity. Facebook wouldn’t have to disclose it was doing this, and would be protected by the First Amendment.

Do we know the bias we get from Gawker?

Indeed. If that’s not already in common usage, it needs to be.

The only thing missing from the headline is the classic obligatory Gawker ‘You Guys’ framing.

Seriously, these kinds of articles just make me laugh to be honest. How does one get this job? She’s obvisouly just trying to be like “look at how much better and PC I am than you.” When in reality she just looks like a fool with a poorly written argument and obvious lack of knowledge and research.

Yup, this article is as reductionist as fuck.

“By the livin’ Gawd that made you,

100% this, and virtue signaling is a great way to put it.

Next week, she presents Jonathan Swift’s cooking tips as evidence of his canibalism…

Super hot take here. I’m glad someone finally had the courage to say that people born in the 1800s had regressive social mores that we might find laughable or repugnant today.

God, io9 has gone downhill. This whole dumb article, like almost everything on Gawker these days, is just narcissistic virtue signaling. You know these idiot writers get giddy every time an opportunity arises to indicate to their mass audience how not-racist, not-sexist, not-homophobic, anti-imperialist and…

I’ve...got some problems with this article. First, it’s not entirely clear what you’re advocating. On the one hand you say that Kipling shouldn’t be censored, but on the other hand you say, in the following paragraph, that a story in which a white person exoticizes a country and its people shouldn’t pass muster in…

My God, Katharine, if I was grading this in a first year English lit. paper you’d be getting a hard F. Yes, Kipling was an imperialist Englishman with some seriously unlovely views that were entirely typical of a man of his age and background.

There’s a particular irony of that: The Brother Remus stories were written down precisely to make sure that they WOULDN’T be forgotten, and the memory of the unique culture that developed in the South during that time would be preserved.

I think if you’re going to lead with something as vulgar as “Rudyard Kipling was a racist fuck and Jungle Book is imperialist garbage” you have to balance it out with a more intellectually robust analysis. You might have a sound point but without a substantial argument, it just comes across like empty trolling.

Kipling was no starry eyed white supremacist. He was keenly aware of the injustices of the colonial system he lived within. He also was arguably in love with Indian, its culture and its people.

I’m not saying that Kipling should be censored...

Oh don’t worry, his legacy will be with us for a long time to come. It will take generations to pay off the debt he created in the 8 years he’s been in office.

I mean this is good and all, but if a white kid said that you'd call it racist.

dude, he’s literally one of the worst presidents of all time by every measure, every historian and journalist agrees.