All of them.
Censorship, if ever truly necessary, should be reactive not proactive. Humans simply cannot correctly foretell the possible scenarios where an otherwise unacceptable word or term needs to be written down and discussed. A million correct removals do not justify killing even one meaningful discussion. That’s the nature of free speech.
You would think that now, more than ever, we (especially we here) would understand how important that freedom is and how inherently destructive any attempt at “pre-crime” always turns out to be.
PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I would argue more generally that censoring words like this is unhelpful and counterproductive.
As seen in the link in the post body, not only can it inhibit clear communication, but anyone actually using the slur would be more clearly identified if the slur remained - thus allowing the mods to definitively identify the user as bigoted and banning them. Replacing it with ‘removed’ creates ambiguity in combating bigotry as well as edge cases and discussions of words - as in the linked case.
Rooki@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
We dont censor words, thats just a way that lemmy works. On local its behaviour is not to censor it, rather block it. To not block federation, lemmy just censors it instead of ignoring/blocking the comment or post.