At least they could explain this one away with "it's just a copyright issue, we're not censoring anything". Here it's plain and open censorship, initiated by the publisher.
Replacing one copy with another in your own device is a fairly intrusive act.
We don't have a word for it yet, given that classical censorship developed in the era of printed books, when such activities were technologically impossible. But I would say that it falls under penumbra of censorship because of the intent. And the intent is to remove certain speech from average reader's view without the reader's consent.
Censorship does not have to be total in order to be censorship. Even in authoritarian states, small oppositional media outlets may be tolerated, so that foreign accusations of media control can be rebuked: "Hey, look at Radio X, we are definitely not censoring them." But their reach is carefully kept limited.
You didn’t buy a book. You bought a license for the content that can be revoked at any time. You also licensed the ebook provider to remove or alter the content as they see fit.
Don’t want changing books? Pirate your ebook or buy a paper book.
Books have been around for centuries. You can't redefine the term because lawyers. If anything, that kind of ninja editing of intellectual history is fraud on a civilizational scale.
Doesn't mean you can sell license subscriptions or whatnot, but what you sell has to match up with what the buyer thinks they're purchasing.
> You didn’t buy a book. You bought a license for the content that can be revoked at any time.
Odd, when I look at a Kindle book on Amazon it shows a button to "Buy now".
> You also licensed the ebook provider to remove or alter the content as they see fit.
It is good that at least the EU has started to recognize the concept of informed consent. Clicking agree on a multi-page contract when that is the only way to access content that you (or someone else) have already paid for is not it.
> Don’t want changing books? Pirate your ebook or buy a paper book.
Those are the immediately available options, but that doesn't mean we have to just accept digital "purchases" being whatever the seller wants them to be while still trying to lure in people by making it seem they are buying something.
You have to understand, LGBT-friendly today means that there are forced diversity inclusions at every corner so noone can possibly not see the progressiveness.
(But having once reviewed a swath of inclusiveness edits via side by side comparisons first hand out of intellectual curiosity about what is going on, it was kinda a nothingburger was my takeaway.)
Not "freely", as it is under copyright. The copyright holders may allow you to access the unbowdlerized version, at additional effort with separate payment. Or they may one day decide otherwise and your access is instantly gone. Unless of course you go to samizdat...
