The word "censorship" has gotten frivolous, imo. I don't claim any specific boundaries for the term, but... there are more angles to this than censorship. Spie

The word "censorship" has gotten frivolous, imo. I don't claim any specific boundaries for the term, but... there are more angles to this than censorship. Spielberg is from perhaps the most commercial art form, cinema. They make Airplane cuts, TV cuts, video cuts. They remaster the score, cut regional releases... These are all commercially oriented "censorship," arguably. Cinema is an art form that's literally pitched to investors and financiers. Purity and absolutes don't exist here. Meanwhile... Books have come in editions since printing. Before that, stories evolved too. Especially for important or really old texts, we're always interested in "The Original." That tends to be when the history matters to us more than the story. That's somewhat at odds with stories "Living." We have stories today that originated milenia ago in forgotten civilisations. They've been written countless times. The original Nancy Drew may be an important cultural artefact. But, solving mysteries by racial profiling or otherwise violating "modern sensibilities" makes it a dead story. Revising additions keeps Nancy Drew suitable reading material for 9 year olds, which is what being a living story means here. Anyway... I'm taking the dissident position. I do like and want the raw, "uncensored" cuts. I want Reservoir Dogs. I want even edgier materials that large, centralised studios OTOH, I have no hard objection to releasing updated editions that reflect updated morals. The freedom & openness obligation that we have is to keep the original intact and available. Intellectual property tends to be the barrier to this, not censorship. It's often fine to rewrite, recut. In fact, it can keep art alive. Guns and Roses pulled a track from an old album, because it had bigoted lyrics. IDK why exactly they "censored" the album, but my guess is that the band doesn't want to sell the album like that anymore... they definitely don't want to play it anymore. Maybe social norms changed. Maybe Axl changed. What seemed edgy and rebellious to 20 year old Axl just seems asshole now. "Anti-Censorship" is a failing paradigm, currently. Is moderating HN or a subreddit censorship? Is having a a newsroom editor censorship? IMO it's a lot more about who makes the decision than what they do. If GnR revise an album, IMO it's ridiculous to call it censorship. Same for having moderation on HN, revised editions of children's books etc. Censorship is a feature of power and monopoly. A subreddit does not have power to "censor," just moderate. Facebook or Twitter's moderation policies are censorious by default. You can't have global-scale, medium-wide content policies that are not censorship.