The New York Times actually broke the story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensore...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensore...
(this exact number has been selected for a specific reason,
it has definite practical significant.
which the EFF quoted as (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason,
it has definite practical significance).One thing we were stuck on for a while is how to let users vote on what the primary URL should be, but (fingers crossed) I now think we may have hit on a way to do it.
The original article was submitted yesterday but got almost no traction, and the inertia of this post seemed to die off around the time it was switched to the NY Times link. Seems like the EFF one really is a better discussion piece. Would you consider changing the URL back so that the majority of the discussion reflects the original source that sparked it in posterity?