{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Rainbow Dash Network","provider_url":"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/","type":"link","title":"Scribus (scribus)'s status on Sunday, 05-Jun-16 04:21:03 UTC","author_name":"Scribus (scribus)","author_url":"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/scribus","url":"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/notice\/4206456","html":"@<span class=\"vcard\"><a href=\"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/user\/1766\" class=\"url\" title=\"Zenneth Ryver-Styx\"><span class=\"fn nickname mention\">zennx<\/span><\/a><\/span> People have argued that even labeling &quot;troublesome&quot; content can be a problem and cause de facto censorship by restricting potential audience. I agree, in that making anything same sex a rating level higher (like when Ellen came out), or keeping &quot;alternative&quot; political viewpoints in a restricted access library, would be stealth or light censorship. But saying, &quot;Hey, this is a thing, do or don't, it's your call,&quot; and then still along it openly available (as most trigger warnings are done), that isn't censorship, it's basically just ratings or classification. I'm certain there's a point where the line blurs, but TW isn't it."}