Hey, again I don't have a problem with anyone talking about what they want to. I just find it funny that Trans stuff seems to work its way into most conversations today.
Also I should clarify, I'm not saying thar anyone was actually getting off topic, but you asked why he would want us to stop talking about those things and I was giving you an answer I thought was his reasoning more than my own.
I still stand by my initial response to the main question.
I think it's important to draw a line between censorship and filtering.
I don't think creators should censor their work. There will always be a group of people out there who don't like what you have to say or how you say it. Yes, we want people to enjoy our work but I believe we have to first tell our stories for ourselves. Censoring our work, in my opinion, waters it down and dilutes it from the heart of thoughts were probably trying to paint.
That being said, we as creative also need filters. We need to know how far is far enough, not because someone else will be offended, but because at a certain point we start to become counter productive. We have to know what is necessary. And that's not censorship.
Censorship is like throwing away ingredients. Filtering is like having ingredients but choosing what to use and how much of it to use so your recipe turns out right, and sometimes that means very little or not at all.
I think our responsibility is to tell an honest story and introduce new ideas. And we can do that with tactic without censorship.
Now, will people be happy? Will everyone agree? Probably not. But every story isn't for everyone. Every idea doesn't need to cater to the masses. It's better to be bold and authentic and hated than it is to be watered down bland and possibly liked...in my opinion anyway.
It's bloody hilarious that people are attempting to censor others by claiming things are off-topic and then refusing to engage in the conversation when they chime in.
I think Darthmongoose gave some great examples that discuss the nuances of self-censorship and the power our works have in the world. You have to be responsible with what themes and messages you put across, and if you're an asshole that doesn't care and claims that freedom of speech allows you to say anything you like, then I'd like to direct you to a lot of legal laws around defamation and libel.
Before I peace out I'd like to confirm one thing.
JK ROWLING IS A TERF. Thank you for coming to my ted talk. Have a blessed day all.
I also stand my my initial response: 99%^ of these cases could've just been dealt with via content warnings 
Want to make a tweet explaining why you think gender = sex? Sure, do that - just tag it with (cw: gender critical) so people can ignore it if they want to.
Want to write a book about your experience as a pedophilie? Sure, do that - just tag it with (cw: pedophilia) so people can ignore it if they need to.
In so many of these cases, there's no good reason to prevent the information from existing. All the harms could be dealt with via a simple warning. Am I missing something or is it really not that complicated?
It's annoying, but I don't think that constitutes censorship - claiming something is off-topic or not engaging doesn't prevent the other person's argument from existing, and they're not stopping them from making a new topic where they can discuss the off-topic stuff.
For instance, calling out 'whataboutism' is essentially just claiming that something is off-topic. If, for instance you're talking about women's issues and someone comes in and are all like 'but men have it hard too', telling them to take that discussion elsewhere isn't saying they should shut up about men's issues or that they're not important - only that it's not what you're talking about right now, in this space.
For another example, I once discussed the merits of IP with @RobertBMarks and he ended the thread essentially saying I shouldn't have brought up my anti-IP ideas into that thread because it was off-topic.3 I was salty about it and was tempted to call him out on hypocrisy when he expressed an anti-self-censorship stance in this thread, but it would've been wrong of me to do so since he technically didn't ask me to self-censor - he just said I was 'hijacking' the thread we were discussing in and he probably wouldn't have minded if I made my own thread talking about my beliefs.
(Since there's plenty of salt in this thread already, figured it couldn't hurt to add my own two grams onto the pile :'D Besides, Robert has muted the thread already so it's not like he's gonna see this XD
And incidentally, as much as I've got a bone to pick with the guy, I can't help but notice that as soon as he brought up J.K Rowling^^, everyone focused on that part of his comment instead of the actual core of his argument:
I honestly want to know what pro self-censorship people's solution to this is, if they think some things should never be said. (Again, my solution is that everything should be allowed to be said - just some things should be tagged with a content warning.))
^ again, jokes are a difficult area, but stories and opinion pieces are 100% amenable to content warnings
^^ Just for the record, I'm not in camp 'Rowling did nothing wrong' - I'm in camp 'Rowling was wrong but allowing her to be wrong is a necessary consequence of a free society, and if she tags her incorrect speech, that already eliminates 99% of the negative consequences of her saying those wrong things'
If you look at the op's quote it is about how we censor ourselves online, it's not about censoring our work, it was about social media. And I ask of you: Whomst among us posts who we really are and what our real complete opinions are online?????
whomst?
Twitter doesn't give us enough characters to do that, it's not possible if we tried, so we must censor ourselves constantly because there's no room to properly discuss and defend your position. So the best model is to just never get in a fight.
And in that context, it changes what censorship even means in regard to our online works. That isn't self-censorship at all, that is just desperately trying to fit our works into a mold our audience can easily digest so the algorithm will prop us up. Is that story too spicy for tapas? That's just the tapas company/audience telling you what to do, isn't it? That isn't even about the ethics of what you're writing, that's just trying to be as appealing as possible and trying to remain on a site that is also on the Apple store.
I personally think you can only self-censor if your works aren't on the internet, and what 'can' exist and 'should' exist on the internet is constantly evolving.
My question and why I started this topic was
"do you self censor your own work and then not write it even if you would want to?"
I was just interested how other creators handle this because I´m dealing with it a lot
and I have the constant feeling of self censoring my original ideas a lot and I wanted
to know if other people do that too and how they deal with it.
I don´t want to judge other creators or tell other creators what to do and what´s wrong
or right. I honestly don´t have an opinion on that
Exactly. I see absolutely zero reasons why should I censor myself EXCEPT when it comes to following the rules of specific platform. If you don't want to see something uncomfortable, then just don't read/watch it.
I think the core of the issue is that the conversation is dealing with enormously different types of self-censorship. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the side of darthmongoose and everyone else in that media can affect beliefs etc., but it was dealing with something a lot bigger than what you were looking for : p
Bringing the question back to on topic??? maybe it was still on topic?? But reducing the scale - the best way to self-censor in practice is to research. Do you have enough confidence in writing about this minority, this disability, this IRL heated subject? If not and you're short on time, it's best to enact that self-censorship and deal with it elsewhere.
But, that's no excuse to not try research anyway! Some people will put indie works on a pedestal, for example, and expect primo perfect writing or they get even more scrutinized than the cis white guy writing popular show #13021. However, that is on them - if you know you're not overstepping, if you did your research, if you're sure that you can have a bit of a say in the matter even if to make more readers aware of a subject to begin with, don't let those people stop you then.
(JK Rowling is a TERF and we should move past her works though)
I don't censor anything I do because it's just frustrating keeping track of things you can and can't do.
Of course, if it is a topic that can be controversial, I still have the option not to talk about it. Avoiding certain things can save so much brain cells.
About censorship itself, that's how I interpret it:
Censorship is when someone slams a big heavy bag of coins into your nutsack.
Now, self-censorship would be if you slammed a big heavy bag of coins into your nutsack.
You wouldn't want to do that. Right?
(If you still say yes: Aren't you a little kinky fellow.)
I am very anti-censorship, but I have done some self-censorship within certain parameters. The parameter being that it must be available uncensored somewhere. So for my comic if a character is nude for example, on sites where it's free-to-read, I will censor it and then make the uncensored version available on Patreon. So this helps keep inline with the host platform's rules and allows the uncensored version to be rewards for my patrons.
I have also done a very little of toning things down a bit in my comic. But I consider it very minor stuff.
Was this really needed? You could have said "the new popular series on tv." Instead you come off as very bias. Everyone gets scrutinized in movies/TV. It's not a identity thing so don't make it one.
But see, how much research is enough? How do you know you're not overstepping until you've already posted the work and someone tells you that you were? What qualifies as 'having a bit of a say in the matter'? Is an agender person more qualified to write in-depth trans representation than cis people? (As an agender person, I feel like I understand trans people even less than your average cis person, because cis people at least have a gender identity and know what it's like to be misgendered, for example.)
Some people are always going to be paranoid about whether its 'enough', and saying "oh don't worry, you're doing better than 'cis white guy writing popular show #13021'" doesn't help. That's why I'm so keen on proposing we don't draw a line at all between what should be said and what should not. People like me are always going to worry if we're on the wrong side of that line.
And I just don't think it's necessary, when the harms of saying something bad can be mitigated by a simple content warning (e.g. 'this work may contain misinformation on [this minority/this disability/this IRL heated subject]. Read it with a grain of salt).
Imagine if works of propaganda have to be prefaced with (warning: this is a propaganda piece). I can't imagine it would make for very effective propaganda after that.
I wouldn't call choosing not to write something you don't know enough about censorship. I'd call that being self aware.
I think censorship is saying you can't, or you aren't allowed to write something because you think other people don't want you to.
I think choosing not to write something when you could (not because someone or something says you shouldn't or cant but because you yourself are simply deciding you feel its best not to ) is just thoughtful conscious tactful writing.
Every instance in which a person chooses not to write something isn't censorship.
Well or you can just ask other people for help. If you don't know if something is appropriate or not, then take the effort to reach out to other people. You don't really want to end up like Disney's Song of the South where Walt Disney thought he was making a positive film for black people. Or Music who didn't even take the effort to talk to autistic people for their film about autism. Part of it is ego and willing to get off the high horse and listen to other people.
Another famous example is the Simpsons was almost going to have Homer call a gay man the f-slur but removed it after a gay man read over their script. The writers didn't know that word was seen as being really offensive and honestly I think removing it was a good choice.
I don´t agree on that the best way to self-censor is to research but that depends on what kind of story you
are writing. When you write about science you have to do research.
For all other stories I want to hear the creators point of view without the creator doing research before
he writes it to find out if he they have to self censor what they wrote.
I don´t know what the cis-white guy thing has to do in this topic
I've been watching this thread from afar just but with regards to this point specifically i think it can tie in when you take into account the amount of self censorship an individual puts into a work especially with regards to representations or inclusion of certain things
people from marginalized backgrounds and especially those with intesectional identities i think tend to be more inclined towards self censorship given the way they're likely used to seeing themselves negatively represented in a body of work in one form or another whether it's blatant misinformation, negative stereotyping, harmful bigoted opinions and so on. So in that regard theirs much more inclination to take care in what's put out and how things are phrased, formatted, etc
meanwhile there are those outside those labels (cishet white men as was mentioned) who at least from an outsider point of view but still through observation of the way things are handled in the things they produce tend to reflect a lot less of this kind of care. I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN EVERY CISHET WHITE MALE DOES THIS or that such generalization is fair but you can absolutely spot those who didn't bother to do their research or simply didn't care to and interviews sometimes are really good for exposing these mindsets; hence i imagine the mention of ego as those kinds of folks may see themselves as being above a need to do any kind of research because it's their "grand creative imagination" and doing so would "hinder them" or something of the like
also going back there's a different kind of standards that marginalized folks are held to as opposed to non marginalized folks where there's an expectation (or it's unsurprising) for cis white dudes to bastardize cultures or misrepresent identities and so on but there's a much higher expectation and trust for the rest because obviously they should care being one who falls within xyz demographic. which isn't to say folks from marginalized identities don't make fuck ups of their own but the bar is set much higher i think hence why there's a stronger sense of this self imposed need for self censorship otherwise you're "failing" these people
personally i think everyone should be held to a certain standard when it comes to what they put in their work and if they insist on a certain thing then warn folks ahead of time so they can avoid whatever material or content that they would find distasteful. like on the barest most basic level it's common decency to not be a piece of shit but that doesn't mean people wont go out and be one anyways. so when you're someone looking to have a large platform (or if you have one already) there's also a level of responsibility there when it comes to what you put out because you've got a reputation and you have influence so dragging back the trans topic one more time when jkr says things that can get trans people killed it's a problem hence the backlash and a need for self censorship. (is she gonna do it probably not but the point still stands per that example)
i think what someone else said about things like self awareness and self censorship being a layered issue is why there's this VAST array of replies covering a broad range of topics because there's the very bare minimum of choosing whether or not to say something versus a more long term of putting something in a piece of media that will continue to live on in whatever place, be consumed by others and have some form of impact based on the content and what decisions the creator behind it made
like even the mention of propaganda technically applies because yeah it had/has intents but that's the thing. self censorship is also tied to intent "what do you intend to say, whats your point, what do you mean by xyz" because intent, research and internal though is what drives decision making alongside like 50billion other things but you get my point)
[this also dragged on way longer than i intended and i only care so much for discussion on this platform because the way some folks here react or respond to things but that's as best as i can phrase my thoughts for right now :/]
[[also this is in no way some targeted response but just addressing points i feel are relevant to the topic and the whole "what do cis white dudes or race/sexuality/gender have to do with anything" replies because imo it does tie in it's just one of those fuzzy points in the broader topic that this happens to be]]
"personally i think everyone should be held to a certain standard when it comes to what they put in their work and if they insist on a certain thing then warn folks ahead of time so they can avoid whatever material or content that they would find distasteful"
can you please give an example (beside the obvious ones which are "may contain violence, swear words, erotic content) so I can understand?
Just a reminder, this is the topic´s question:
"do YOU self censor your own work and then not write it even if you would want to?"
for this i'd say maybe certain more polarized views/opinions/beliefs and the like so if someone with more right extremist opinions happened to have a body of work that either directly included those things or even vaguely alluded to them i'd prefer if there were forwewarning to them being in there
if we're to tie it to the original topic of "do you self censor" my example would be how i'd wanted to work on a story with a more modern/urban setting which would include folks from a variety of cultural/racial backgrounds and gender identities/sexualities (living in a US like setting) but i'd put the project aside [which i guess in a way counts as self censoring] as i didn't feel i'd had enough information or insight into how to go about properly portraying these characters. sure i've got the context of my own identity and i live in a very big city so i'm exposed to a lot of diversity both in a racial context as well as in terms of gender identity or sexuality as well as having net access but because at that time i didn't know what felt like the best starting point for research for that project and how to approach it i shelved it for when i'm more confident in my ability to do these characters and their story justice rather than just relying on known stereotypes that could lead to bad rep not based on other standards or potential response but as a self conscious decision to idk...do the right thing?
that's like even with projects i'm working on now: i have plus sized characters i wish to include but intend to do as much work as possible to make sure that i'm not falling on any of the overly regurgitated fatphobic stereotypes or redundant cliches often seen in different bodies of work, I'm creating fictional cultures which may take some inspiration from existing cultures but i want to ensure that i do so in a way that doesn't use harmful rhetoric or misinformation that's spread about them.
that's like i'm aware that there's no such thing as a perfect body of work there's no guarantee that i wont screw something up but if i can acknowledge my intent (which is proper rep in stories i'm creating so that it's not only genuine for my story but doesn't disrespect or misrepresent folks who very well could end up in my pool of readers) then i can make progress in doing that research that everyone seems so intimidated or offended by because no you'll never really know how much is enough but that's the point of doing as much as you can and getting feedback from relevant parties and not just your fellow writing buddies who're more likely to tell you to "write whatever you want" instead of practicing a bit of mindful self education
that and like in a general i don't think anyone is necessarily obligated to self-censor but i think depending on specific context it may be the better thing to do (because sure for years we heard about sticks and stones but words do hurt and have impact regardless of how little they might seem in a given moment)
Sure, but people aren't obligated to help you, especially if you're not paying them. I do think that in an ideal world, just asking should never be a problem as long as you're not pushy or entitled. But a lot of people are tired of constantly educating others about their identity, so it could be easily seen as 'expecting marginalized people to educate you' or 'being entitled to a marginalized person's labour'.
If you happen to get the all clear from one person, that doesn't necessarily mean you're completely off the hook either. No group is a monolith, and just because one person doesn't see anything problematic, doesn't mean others won't. And asking a second person to check over your work can honestly feel like asking too much.
Sometimes it's not about ego; it's about being afraid to burden others (and not have the money to pay so that it's not a burden).
I do feel like sometimes if your from Marginalized Group A, you're expected to accurately represent the completely unrelated Marginalized Group B even though there's no reason you'd be any more informed about them than the white cis guy. Maybe it's a 'do unto others' kind of thing? As in, 'if you don't represent our group well, don't complain if someone don't represent your group well'?
Basically, I think this is all we need. People should be allowed to insist. But they should also warn folks ahead of time if they do.
(Just for the record, I'm not intimidated or offended by research; I do in fact try to do it myself. But the only reason why I can put aside my fears of 'is it enough' and just publish the darn thing is because I believe it's okay to put out work that may hurt others, as long as you put out a warning so people can avoid it. I can never confirm for certain that it's 'enough'; I have to just be okay with it not being 'enough'.)
Thanks for sharing how you do it with your work, this is information I´m interested in.
I would like it when people just leave the part out of the discussion what other creators should or shouldn´t do
or if they should censor their work and discussions about other creators
Yes, it is 
Anything tumblr and twitter currently has their fangs on that's not triple A production might still be deserving of some criticism, but the amount of vitriol when they realize they can @ the creator to throw all their frustrations that it's not made for them, directly at said user, is absolutely a phenomenon.
That's usually where I'd recommend bringing a sensitivity reader in;; the truth is, you really can't draw a line like you mentioned, and a CW is always better to cover your bases. But you've gotta try, it's what I wanted to emphasize the most. You gotta make some mistakes to become a better writer, so it's better to trip on small pitfalls that come from doing research but naturally get missed, than write something that causes actual harm because no attempt was made.
On bringing up the cis white guy thing, yeah, it's what @VibrantFox said. A rich straight dude with friends in the industry can say "yeah I wanna make a story where a gay guy suffers then dies" can get paid and compliments for it(and get a couple posts criticizing the decision that never reach them), while a minority creator can do tons of research and do something really thoughtful, but use "queer" in an audience that would rather adopt another general term, and get grilled and harassed off of social media for it. One actually did something really boneheaded and probably had tons of other problems in the work, the other did a genuine misread and mistake, but the latter catches far more flak for it because they're acessible.
I guess I don't have any personal examples other than, "oh I switched out species because this fantastical creature comes from a marginalized group and they're frequently misrepresented" because they get left at the cutting room floor wayyyy early and I move on to other stories.
Basically this scene but it all happens in my mind and I've forgotten the concept by next week
13
If you don't thing a "rich straight dude" can't be cancelled for writing the wrong story or saying the wrong thing from the outrage group on twitter and social media, you live in a fantasy world.
it's far less to do with being socially ostracized and far more that the level of consequence or impact it has on the respective individual.
the accessible marginalized individual in most cases gets pushed off a platform (i've watched this happen via mass false reports getting accounts deleted or permanently banned) or put into physical danger (i.e. doxxing which a very large number of marginalized folks can vouch for and enough research thru reputable sources can show these statistics) meanwhile the "rich white guy" can easily shut things down or is for the most part untouchable coz negative critique (or "cancellation") doesn't really extend past social media platforms. Those guys aren't losing their jobs or having their well-being compromised and very rarely do those guys show remorse and if anything tend to double down on their stances
i get you've got an angle but facts show otherwise, so the "fantasy world" seems to be one of your own making
also since i imagine you're the kind of person who wants proof:
i can probably add more but that's the most that come to mind
specifically with regards to minorities and marginalized folks taking more flack than their white counterparts you can even look into the youtube debate that rose up after cory, markiplier and jack (as well as a number of other youtube creators) talked about some things they observed with regards to visibility of their videos and channel overall versus how the youtube staff responded
and i wanna be clear this isn't me attempting to make some kind of targeted attack but when voices of people are shut out or silenced it becomes incredibly painful when people deny that it's happened or is happening but please tell us that we're making up false realities
[also i'm very sorry to op in the way this is likely derailing but i just wanted to quickly give a rebuttal and if requested will quickly move to delete this]
Just stop. I don't deny it's happening. I deny its a marginalized person problem. If a rich white person makes the "wrong" opinion, they can lose their career just as easy as a non-white person. You tube is known for banning people for their opinion and that is their livelihood. The outrage crowd knows no skin color. They destroy anyone they don't like. And by saying people should use sensitivity readers and do research on stuff to keep them from being attacked makes you fall right into their hands. That is censorship. It's a threat to say "speak right or we will destroy you." Everyone needs to tell people that get outraged at stories to go fuck themselves and not read it. If you have a story to tell, write it. Those that say it's problematic, ignore them. If you really are writing a bad story, the audience won't be there, that will be your proof. We need to start acting like adults and not taking everything as an attack.
Finally people like you need to understand the "rich white guy" doesn't get away with as much as you think. But it's very easy to demonize them as the "other" to blame problems on. And very few writers are rich anyway, and almost no comic artists are. The outrage to skin color of a fan artwork isn't coming from "white" people, 99% of the time it's from minorities. The asian writer that wrote a story about slavery in a fantasy world was drive to cancel her book by non-whites complaining she couldn't write about it because its a black issue. This is just making everyone miserable. No good is coming from this but censorship.
to be fair i do agree with the point that folks can write what they want and that reader response can serve as an answer but i wont argue further as there's clearly no point
I wanna know who are those youtubers with the "wrong opinions" who got banned you speak of
I mostly agree in terms of fictional content. But like if your whole video is trying to educate and you are spreading misinformation the rules are "dont spread misinformation" then.. that's not censorship. If I had rules on not pissing on my floor. And you decided to piss for """freedom"". Me kicking you out is not censorship or infringing on your rights. You can still piss else where.
But like the usual white guy types I've seen scream censorship of thier opinions are usual still quite active and talkaive. Maybe even gain a following on from thier "I just got canceled donate to my patreon"
While folks like the fall's lady, a trans woman, lost everything due to a fictional book.
Personally, i filter my content based on the age rating of the story i'm making and i'm pretty upfront about it so the right audiences go to the right places.
So.....i'm willing to write adult content that interests me to make, but i wouldn't allow my nephews or other kids to watch it and would not publish it in a site oriented to children.
Now......about trigger warnings.....personally i prefer to do a more general warning about the kind of content to expect in the beginning of the story that avoids reaching spoilers. (ex: this story contains violence, abuse, sex scenes, etc...) So people can be informed if they want to deal with stuff that may be heavy for them without undermining the reader experience for people who are willing to deal with that kind of story.
So....in few words.....i give the right warnings and put the content in the right places.
"The thread is about how YOU censor yourself"
You guys can make a new thread on cancel culture. If you wanna continue
I believe I said to let people pound sand on telling you what you can and can't say/do. That is on topic as you self censor if you believe doing so will keep those people from attacking you. So before you put your gif up telling us what to do, please read what we wrote.
That's another way of saying you don't believe in free speech. Not going to get into it with you as you have bought into the "misinformation" bullshit as an excuse to ban people. But just know that one day this can and will be used against you and you don't want to live in that world.
Wow. Okay dude.
Okay that's not free speak sorry but free speech is like you can say something and not get thrown in prison for it.
Not you can say something and not experience social consequences. Like people thinking your gross or not worth being around. If youtube has a rule that says dont promote false covid facts or inciting racial hatred. That's thier private rule. They just aren't throwing you to the gullages they have every right to boot you off as a private company. Same with tapas.
Unless I can assume you belive in alot of bs facts from youtubers. Which I'll say you do you.
I know it will on day happen simply cus I like gross slimy fictional shit. And seeing what happened with certain queer friendly content creators (I'm sure some here already know a few names especially this year). Might as well advertise my fiction to people who love the sadz. But hey I ain't gonna be advertising myself a crappy teacher and teach misinform like Robert here early 
When the government asks the hosting private company to ban people (which they did), that is no longer a private company but an arm of the government. You really need to look into what the government told (ask is the polite way of saying it, but the government doesn't ask. they tell.) companies like youtube, google, and the like to do. Then get back to me about private companies...
Are you implying YouTube University isn't a good education?
Next you'll be claiming Prager U isn't a real university!
Okay.
YouTube isnt an arm of government man. Stop huffing the fumes.
It ain't that deep. Host your crazy weed facts on your private site. Its okay
I don't know what any of this stuff has to do with self-censorship. But I think on a private corporation and government level is a completely different issue to what an individual does with censorship.
If all this is stuff is affecting how people self-censor themselves, maybe people should consider content warnings on their content which I don't think there aren't any harm with that.
You would be shocked by the number of people who use random YT videos as a source of legit information. Heck every Lion King vs Kimba article and even professional journals reference some random video which places similar scene side by side yet does not really disclose the context of the scenes. It ended up misinforming a lot of people and creating this weird conspiracy theory.
But if a private company does the bidding of the government (which they did), is there seriously any different. If Youtube made their guidelines, it's one thing. If the government calls you up and says you need to do something about this misinformation, that is completely different. This directly affects the comics you all read. The governments of the world want to make some artwork illegal for looking too young. You can debate that all you want whether the pictures represent minors or not. But if the government comes in and tells your hosting platform to take that all down that's censorship. There is no difference in the outcome.
Everyone is so for freedom of art and expression unless you disagree with it. You don't need laws to protect stuff you agree with. It's the stuff you disagree with. In the context of self censorship this has a chilling affect to make creators second think everything they do. "Is this going to hurt some person that can make my life miserable." It's why we have made up jobs like sensitivity readers. That's just you paying some one to censor you. don't do it. Just write your story and entertain. That is our jobs.
Sensitivity readers are paid censorship is a wild take but alright. Cus like that's not censorship. You can listen to them or or chose not too. You are not going to jail.
Quick question who are those youtubers tha were so oppressively banned?
You hadn't answered my questions on which youtubers you were referring to.
The one who voted against gay marriage in Australia cus of feminism
Or the one who brought a nazi on his pod cast and said he made some good points on why black people have lower IQ.
Or the one with his crazy religious cult.
Which ones? Theres a big list 
That isn't illegal but I can see why a private host would not want that.
Just saying.
Personally fiction is diffrent but once again people not bring happy with it isnt censorship.
