True, cutting things for technical or artistic reasons isn’t censorship. Only when it’s done for moral reasons.

How can they possibly be dissapointed in losing access to things that *I* personally don’t care for?

Additionally, there’s another chorus of voices complaining that they’re being “censored” (read: moderated, something every developer has the right to do—how are we still talking about this)

“Triggered” refers to the activation of PTSD symptoms, not mild annoyance. Are the people complaining about the writing known for having PTSD or something?

Yeah, people who pre-judge others are the worst

And now the media-owned segment of the web is contantly lobbying people to expose as much of their lives beyond the veil of anonymity. But then people read less-than-flattering public tweets, share them, and it suddenly becomes a case of domestic terrorism.

I turned off my ad-blocker just to say thank you for adding disclosure to the article! Really, thank you

So to sum up, Amazon treats it’s employees terribly, and we want more women working for Amazon

I’ve gotten my internet cut off three times in three years, and most of the time I’m not running torrents. Some are more active than others, and it depends on how hungry the publishers are.

“At any rate, anti-censorship activists attacking her as if she’s somehow responsible for Nintendo’s regional changes in their games seems really immature and short-sighted.”

Because the possession of child porn is a legal issue? A legal issue which she opposed in the past, hence describing it as ‘bullshit’.

Here you go:

Well that doesn’t make sense, as Grayson was also attacked pretty heavily, according to twitter. The biggest difference being that Quinn did about a dozen interviews and Grayson declined to make any public comment, so the reporting is certainly different.

Were people literally attaching ethics in journalism justifications to their death and rape threats? That is just so bizarre. It’s just hard to get a grasp, since 99% of the threats were apparently sent privately via email and PMs, and their victims take a hostile stance toward sharing them, even with journalists.

If you never read the essay, then how do you know Walton was duped, and everyone else is lying about the content?

Who have I demanded severe consequences for? When have I ever said anyone should be fired? For the sake of your own mental and emotional well-being, I am asking you to consider that maybe not everyone in life who factually corrects you on a minor issue is part of a racist terrorist neo-nazi conspiracy.

Just tell me what I’ve done to you, or anyone, to deserve getting locked up. I think you’ll discover that there’s been a misunderstanding. Take a deep breath, relax, and use your words.

But again, how does the existence of an “ethics in journalism” angle hide any threats? That’s what I never understood. Do they somehow become harder to see, to screencap, or copy+paste? Was there a class of internet trolls waiting for gullible people to talk about journalism before sending out threats? Because every…

I think repeatedly asking people for evidence and not getting it makes me the opposite of willfully blind. I’m BEGGING people to prove me wrong, but they always get so offended and cagey.

No, you’re not literally crying, you’re just angrily accusing me of being a neo-nazi white supremacist solely because I corrected you on the content of a message board. Surely a reasonable response, if you have no idea what those words mean.