WhiteNachos said:
The article would still be up on the original website even with the advertisers pulling out, plus they aren't pressuring archive.org to remove their archived version of it are they?
You mean just like how GTA5 is freely and legally available at other retailers?
Hell, even if the GTA-is-a-Elliot-Rogers-inclubator crowd targeted every retailer in the country it would still be available for import.
Even if they were to ask or demand that the developer/publisher cease distribution or alter the game's content then the dev/publisher would be free to say "fuck off".
WhiteNachos said:
Also comical when people cling to a definition they made up so they can try to manipulate the argument in an underhanded way (see also Xism is prejudice + power). Censorship doesn't have to be from the government. It's really desperate, I mean just look at the dictionary definition of censor (scroll down to verb part)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
You'll notice it doesn't say you have to be part of the government to do it, but hey let's not let facts get in the way.
Nice try.
The key word in those definitions isn't "government", it's "remove".
GTA5 has not been removed. I, an Australian, can walk into a video game store right now, legally purchase a copy and revel it all its prostitute-murdering glory.
But let's not let that little fact get in the way, huh?
WhiteNachos said:
Oh my god you mean they actually complained about stuff they don't like to the people who said it? What a horrible thing to do. /s No one would give a shit if people who don't like GTA complained to Rockstar.
I didn't say it was terrible. In fact, I said they were entirely free to do it, regardless of whether or not I like it.
... and of course that it continues to be profoundly amusing when they rend their garments and tear at their hair when others do the same thing. That being my key point throughout.
WhiteNachos said:
They attempted to damage the revenue of news outlets they didn't like.
That's an underhanded way of saying "news outlets that made biased pieces about them", but at least it's something similar.
It's a short, simple and accurate way of describing what happened without relying on subjective terms.
News outlets published articles. Some funny people perceived those articles to be biased. They did not like those articles because of that. They "bugged" the writers and outlets of those articles to not write and distribute such articles. They sought to disrupt the revenue of the outlets that published those articles.
Elsewhere, some people made and distributed a game. Some funny people perceived that game to be harmful, obscene and making light of violence against prostitutes. They bugged a retail outlet to not sell the game.
Either both these things constitute censorship or neither of them do. You can bend the definition of the word if you must, word meanings change over time after all, but you don't get to only apply it where it suits you.
Personally I don't regard either of these happenings as censorship, but I do regard both these groups and their actions to be equally unworthy of respect and am thoroughly amusing when one sees fit to condemn the other for actions so similar to their own.