I think the optimism is sorely lacking in AbramsTrek because of several reasons. Most people have already touched on his deficiencies in storytelling, but I think there might be another reason that gets comparatively little attention.

We must remember that by the standards of today a lot of nerds would sneer at Gene Roddenberry for being an "SJW". Since Abrams has already thrown out the old nerds with his take on Khan, he cannot afford to rile up the very vocal minority that might take umbrage at Roddenberry's push for equality and inclusion.

It's speculation, and I don't afford it more credibility than mere possibility, but I do think it is possible that Abrams or someone in the studio marketing department might have been thinking on those lines, even if unconsciously.

Actually it was. You decried Reddit's decision to throw the scum from their forums as 'censorship'. And given your usual libertard ranting, that's a moral condemnation coming from you.

So, not only do you think that Reddit has no right to keep scum from their own private property, you don't even have the courage of your convictions to say it outright.

That is waaaay too much for unskilled workers.

Who made you Grand Poobah in charge of the Market? What is wrong with employees negotiating a decent salary?

Sure, it sounds nice and progressive and kum-ba-ya-bullshitty to say that even "real" porn models have a right to control the distribution of their images. In practice, you need a bigger stick than Reddit has to force that genie back in the lamp

But that still does not make it right; and it still makes throwing the posters of such material off your boards the right thing to do.

An appeal to "worse happens elsewhere", or even "If we don't allow bad things here they will move elsewhere anyway" is a shoddy defence. That somehow you don't see the moral bankruptcy of that is rather a reflection on you.

No, Soon was attacked for not disclosing his funding in relevant papers.

He's swearing because nobody sane thought, in a million years, that it would be controversial to ban revenge porn and stolen nude pictures from a private website.

That right there is exactly on the money.

Funny, all three of your examples are consensual activities. Posting nudes without permission of the model? Isn't.

So yeah, Reddit is in effect throwing out the abusive idiot who think that being invited to your party thinks it is OK to feel up the girls, and when the host complains defends himself with "But they're asking for it".

I still don't see a downside of this action. I don't think I am merely technically right.

"It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.

So, it is perfectly fine to spread lies that you're a paedophile and make you lose your job. No-one has the right to remove those accusations from their forums.

Really, you Free-Speach fundamentalist libertards are the greatest fun. No right can be absolute as long as you have to share public space with other people. Every attempt at exercising an absolute right will sooner or later come into conflict with other peoples' rights.

If you want absolute Freedom of Speech, go live in a cave. Or stay in your mom's basement, which is basically the same thing.

Should we be happy that these organizations have chosen censorship as a response to abuse?

Yes. Next question?

Too be more expansive: If you think that I as a host should not have the right to throw abusive visitors out of a gathering at my place, you're a fucking idiot.

Once more the storm is howling and half hid
Under this cradle-hood and coverlid
My child sleeps on. There is no obstacle
But Gregory's Wood and one bare hill
Whereby the haystack and roof-levelling wind,
Bred on the Atlantic, can be stayed;
And for an hour I have walked and prayed
Because of the great gloom that is in my mind.

I have walked and prayed for this young child an hour
And heard the sea-wind scream upon the tower,
And under the arches of the bridge, and scream
In the elms above the flooded stream;
Imagining in excited reverie
That the future years had come,
Dancing to a frenzied drum,
Out of the murderous innocence of the sea

[...]

Considering that, all hatred driven hence,
The soul recovers radical innocence
And learns at last that it is self-delighting,
Self-appeasing, self-affrighting,
And that its own sweet will is heaven's will;
She can, though every face should scowl
And every windy quarter howl
Or every bellows burst, be happy still.

-- W.B. Yeats, A Prayer for my Daughter

The rest of the poem is a bit dated, in that Yeats is giving advice to his daughter that is rather sexist by modern views, but these three stanzas say it all really.

In the case of food irradiation, it's not the radiation most people are afraid of. That's propaganda spread by the party the people really are afraid of: the food (especially meat) industry, who wants to use irradiation as a patch on their unsanitary practices.

He is also right.

The proof? Read any Slashdot thread on a scientific topic.

So you are using their chat app to talk about how to infringe their copyright, and you think they are in the wrong?

Entitled little bitch much?

Since corporate-owned Internet was provably no obstacle to government surveillance, your question is irrelevant.