In the news

I think that the deletion of the articles, in such a way as to leave no trace, is possibly not the most (odd thing to say but) valuable way that they could be treated - keeping the article but with an intro (and potentially apology) that spells out why it has been marked as "warning, anti-semitic" leaves it in the record but makes it clear that it's not acceptable.

Things vanishing as if they never were makes it difficult to construct an accurate picture of events, views and context - something that is peculiarly easy to the digital world where you can delete one file and everything that has linked to it then 404's.

OK, I will try and make myself clear.

We live in very complex, fast moving times, and I am struggling to make sense of what's going on. So much so, in fact, that I'm probably going to enrol in some form of post-grad study so I can try and get a better understanding of what's happening to the world.

I find that currently, in the public domain, informed debate has been replaced with finger-pointing and sloganeering.

In the case of the Kevin Myers article, I believe he made some sort of link between the religious status of two women, and the gender pay differentials at the BBC. His point may or may not of been anti-semitic, I don't know because the article has been deleted.

So my point, as such, is that I think it may be more dangerous to try and delete history (for all the best intentions), than to engage with the enemy head on.

His point may or may not of been anti-semitic, I don't know because the article has been deleted.

it really was.

have.

Isn't a cached version of the page available if you really want to read it?

I absolutely agree that the internet is a terrible place for adult discussions and it's terrifying how it's impacting the real world (brexit, trump).

I don't think major news publications publishing more dumb shit is the answer. Don't know what the answer is, tbf, but no one seems to.

I'm pretty sure the answer isn't censorship. Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

I agree with @Dammit - leave it up so everyone can see how fucking stupid Kevin Myers is.

This is the extract from the article in question, it's not exactly holocaust denial.

I'm pretty sure the answer isn't censorship.

Who suggested censorship?

The article was deleted because it risked advertising money and subscriptions. Not because it's not allowed to be said.

Also, if you left it up with an apology/disclaimer papers would be a lot less likely to publish this sort of thing in future. As it is, deleting the article is the easy way out.

I am struggling to make sense of what's going on. So much so, in fact, that I'm probably going to enrol in some form of post-grad study so I can try and get a better understanding of what's happening to the world.

Save yourself the trouble; Give me 20 grand, I'll trouser it, then give you a reading list you have to source a pay for yourself and then lock you in a room with 300 International Students who can't speak English but are paying me 40 grand for the huge privilege of studying with you-then oblige you to nurse them through all class activities if YOU want to pass, then if you don't abandon the course half way through because of malnutrition and respiratory problems as a result of the poverty you're living in to pay your way through I'll print you out a shite certificate with a digital signature that no employer will ever check for you to hang above your toilet.

Deal? It's certainly a great way to learn about your place in British society if ever there was one-your money will go to showing you that you're interests are inferior to foreign wealth and no matter how much talent you have, as soon as you can't pay you'll be ushered out the back door with your possessions in a bin bag.

Who suggested censorship?

Well, I did, because that's what's happening. The definition of censorship:

the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

It doesn't matter if the paper that published it is doing the supressing, it's still censorship.

it's not censorship until it's the gubmint telling you you can't read something.

carry on.

If that's your working definition of censorship then it is, and has always been, an integral part of publishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

I mean, fucking editors. As bad as Goebbels.

There's a separate wiki for self-censorship because it's a different (but obviously related) thing.

also, i'm pretty sure if these guys think it's anti semitic, it's anti semitic.

https://antisemitism.uk/

yeah, it's a different thing.

Even made it as the closing story in the BBC R4 21.00 news flash.
Announcer managed to avoid any gloating in his voice as he stated that the 'writer will not be used again'.

what a bounder, sneaking into the newspaper HQ under the cover of darkness and secreting his nefarious article onto the printing presses like some sort of holocaust denying blaggard.

The editors didn't create the febrile atmosphere which led them to believe that pulling the article is the best thing to do. It's pretty clear the (self) censorship came about from an overreaction to some lazy stereotyping of Jewish people by a shit journalist who should have known better and the editors who should never have let it through (I suspect they didn't read it properly or they're just shit).

Ultimately though as you said realistically it was likely a commercial decision, not an editorial one.

What does deleting Myers' article achieve?

It doesn't change Myers' opinions, or those of others who agree with him.

If an argument is strong enough, it can withstand and counter opposing opinions.

At the least, censoring the likes of Myers and his ilk allows their views to go unchallenged and gain traction.

I'm pretty sure that the Campaign Against Antisemitism are not exactly an unbiased and authoritative source on what does or doesn't constitute antisemitism, given that their entire purpose is to campaign against antisemitism.

what opinion is it myers has that you think is worth arguing against?

so... we should defer to you and your hot takes in this regard rather than people who are the actual targets of anti semitism?

could you not?

What does deleting Myers' article achieve?

It avoids boycotts and advertisers fleeing.