One more comment, to specifically address your 1960s socialists example:

I am not arguing that popular opinion cannot veer dangerously into censorship of dissenting political ideas. It can, and it has, many, many times in human history.

What I AM arguing is that shutting down racist subreddits is not moving us closer to that scenario. There is a big difference between dissenting political speech and truly hateful speech. Everyone can see the difference, but hateful speakers like to make a false equivalence between the two, and they can use that argument to convince well-intentioned people that shutting down one is the same as shutting down the other.

There's "mainstream viewpoints," and then there's viewpoints that are unambiguously in favor of hating people and/or deliberately bringing them harm. There are reddit groups that exists solely to express hatred for a given race, sex, sexual orientation, or body type. I'm not talking about "we think homosexuality is a sin," or "we believe that culture is too permissive of unhealthy lifestyles." I'm talking about "[type of person] is garbage, and we want to hurt them, shame them, and ultimately exterminate them."

There is no slippery slope connection between that type of viewpoint and the universe of unpopular but legitimately held viewpoints out there. If we ever reach the point where the majority of Americans support the extermination of a particular race, it won't be because we stopped enabling racist speech.

First they came for the racists and we all celebrated because we were not racists and racists suck.
Then they came for the pedophiles and we all celebrated because pedophiles hurt children, and seriously what the f*** is wrong with you?
Then they tried to come for the socialists and we said "WTF, dude?! That's a valid political viewpoint that isn't explicitly about hate and harming others!"

And then the rest of the speech kind of fall apart because seriously, not all viewpoints are equally valid.

This is a popular argument for sure, but is there actual evidence for it? It's possible that "venting" dangerous desires in a controlled setting prevents people from acting on them, but it seems equally possible that it could lead to the escalation of those desires through exposure to new fantasies and the support of like-minded people.

It just seems like a really dangerous assumption to make.

It is absolutely about ethics. The question is, is it more ethical to preserve unencumbered freedom of expression on your site or to prevent a radical few from using your platform to harm others?

If you're prepared to blurt out an answer as though it were obvious, you haven't given it enough thought. Ethics is a subtle and complicated subject, and there are many situations where different ethical standards must come into conflict.

Nobody seriously expects that Disney's customers will boycott over this. If they suffer any fallout at all (which I doubt), it won't be from the consumer side. It will be the chilling effect this story has on new hiring. If more skilled workers think twice before accepting a job with Disney, it could inconvenience them in the future.

Even that worst-case scenario is pretty mild, so you can expect Disney to put do a little bit of spin control on the story and then forget about it.

I know this is a troll, but in case anyone is mislead I want to clear up a factual error:
Jailbroken iPhones absolutely can make purchases from the App Store. I have a history of jailbreaking my phones when they get old to enable certain mods and extensions that are not supported by Apple (for example, I had a notification center on my iPhone before Apple released theirs in iOS 7). It didn't change anything about the way I ran or installed my official App Store apps, and I never downloaded a pirated app.

Even if this were patentable, it strikes me as a bad idea to be the company that patents it.
Surge Pricing is already one of the most hated features of Uber. Even if that hatred is unfair, there is definitely going to be more pushback as Uber's business grows. When local governments and consumer groups inevitably start trying to sue them for "gouging," wouldn't it be better to have "common industry practice" as a defense, rather than being the only company that is doing it?

This would be part of my strategy. For the last couple of years, Jobs has been announcing amazing new developments at every public address. The expectations build. The rumor mills churn. The stocks inflate.

Then one of two things happens. Either the announcement is completely beyond what anyone expected, and stocks boom, or the announcement simply meets expectations...and the stocks plummet.

Jobs needs huge, unexpected extravaganzas to keep things booming, but he doesn't have enough of them for every conference. So what does he do? He gradually lowers our expectations by announcing mundane but arguably important developments. The iPod HiFi. The updated Mac Mini. The Intel Mac Pro. Enhancements in Leopard.

Then, when our guard is down... BAM! Out comes the iPhone, or the touchless iPod, or the iWatchEverythingFromMyCouch media center. The impact will be greater when we're no longer expecting it.