Most say what they were from. Where they don't, I'll clarify. In fact the Redacted Rolling Stone Comment was created because it was removed. I rewrote another which was accepted. Then they got rid of the comments page on the article entirely so no one would even know it existed.
They appear in reverse descending order of when they were posted. Notably almost no one would permit anything to be said about the ludicrous connect of #brandfeminism philanthrowashing brutality against #NoDAPL protestors like Floris Whitebull. -Or U2's endorsement for #election2016. That definitely was not allowed. Bomb trains? -Not much. As mentioned, NYT would let me post only so long as I didn't name names.
As Assange said, the most effective form of censorship is privacy, as in privization and private entities' legal rights. He meant in terms of their potential ability to sue you for defamation and the like. I mean it in terms of the structural nature, which shows techniques aplenty, with its root in self-censorship inculcated by propaganda from birth. Privacy fiefs are merely self-perpetuating bias fortresses and that's it (this remains trus no matter how large they become), with the first root failure lying in the fact that they exist purely as pillars of self-promotion, their goal is growth of the company at exclusion of all else. It doesn't by express design set out to be censorious. It's the very nature of private propriety to have censorious outcomes. The internet is nothing but the externalization of all these fiefs, practically a projection that will distort reality by its very design.
The reason the US Military privatized and spun off the internet was because under private administration the First Amendment could be violated with utter impunity. This is dependent on the merger of private entites with the implementation of the policies of the state, they have to have the same goal. What Snowden showed us with Google and Facebook et al's cooperation with the NSA, is that this is what we already have. In terms of corporate merger with the implementations of the state, it is the dawn of fascism.
This was the redacted Rolling Stone Comment. I persisted by rewriting and submitting a second time. That posted. They did not like what I did with it as a technique though, so they removed the comments page entire from the news page and just made it news, because as an individual you are not permitted to spread news.
This was when I tried to comment on the Chicago #bombtrains article. Persistence overcoming them; -it took the better part of a day. It was only when I began repeatedly posting my comments, showing I had backed them before I began, so that they couldn't just get disappeared that they began posting. In short I was going to link them in if they didn't let me post by using just a hyperlink.
Though obviously they did not like this one no matter what:
It was the fact that I had banked this comment so they couldn't disappear it that let it survive:
You can compare that to my accepted comments on Disqus and see what's not fit to print. Of my total 70 comment history, 16 were removed. This is significant when you realize a grand total of 23 (literally upwards of 1/3) were rebellion at Rollingstone for censoring me and the drive I felt against being censored, seeing as in this same period I was also experiencing hack events in Facebook and Facebook revoked my right to comment publicly (anywhere where they and not Disqus provided the comment field (which you realize is a by far the majority)). It was simply the desire to effectively get word out somehow. So if I exist as being redacted 16 out of 52 posts, I'm censored about 30% of the time, and that's excluding other techniques that were employed, or the fact that moderation on larger operations that can create and control their own registered comment fields actually increases the probability of censorship and I tend not to frequent any of those news outlets.
You additionally throw in the weight of position, meaning that the Disqus posts that were allowed were largely apolitical and largely devoid of information (let alone information of a political nature), then the implication is that internet censorship is probably quite heavy indeed. Especially when you consider how and when Facebook decided to remove me from the majority of comment fields entirely (meaning entirely from those they were in control of -having an angle on U2's #election2016 wasn't allowed to be replied on broadly outside my own space, and once I reacted that way, my ability to post in any comment field was revoked. -I had never even attempted to comment on articles before). For your info, I banked the posts Facebook wouldn't permit initially (my very first attempts ever to use a comment field on an article) and sent them to a friend to post in comments on two news articles on the same subject instead of me, just as a point of resistance and to experiment. Duplicating those particular posts/links, his posts were banned as well. But he wasn't temporarily put on a general ban where he was not allowed to post any comments on any news articles at all. The ban lasted long enough to ensure the newsflash had come and went, and the immediacy of the interwebs successfully made posting a response anymore redundant.
Though obviously this Disqus record and even the Facebook episode can be explained by guidelines, for example the designated 'spam' posts on Disqus can just be boiled down to botware that is flagging me for posting urls that come from my own website, what I'm trying to point out that while the whole array of mechanisms are not intentionally censorious (they weren't designed for that purpose), the mechansims against say, spam are also very preventative of the dissemination of dissenting speech by individual parties. Dissemination is an owned (private) concern that must be purchased, and this inhabits the internet's structure by design quite purposefully. Disemmination by individual is prevented by the most rudimentary of mechanisms, say by the fact that searches on anything in Facebook, including trending topics, are designed to turn in deliberately infinitesimal results. Privatized searches are by and large useless by design. And just as a privatized search is created this way deliberately so are many other mechanisms that have to do with the enitre commodification of information and its inverse, privacy. Commodification's adjunct nature in creating demand (or avoiding it) is deeply censorious in its structure. It has to be to commodify either property in making it property. The internet is just as deeply capitalist and oligarchichal as anything else in our prevailing vacuum we claim to call cullture that is in fact predicated on economic dog eat dog (commodification structured as the evacuation of culture).
If you think Facebook is acting within its proprietory guidelines to censor me and this is a good thing and that trying to reply to individual commentors in an instant of absurd, gratuitous psycho-social manipulation (eight parargraphs down) this way as an individual is innapropriate (I'm not even sure this brought about the ban on my making public comments or not, considering I shifted to making comments on Disqus and the like, then encountered a situation where I couldn't post publicly on Facebook at all much later (say a day apart, this being the first time I tried in a comment field on articles, and then consider the fact that my urls in my text from my comments were being actively replaced with total stranger's urls out of Facebook in my own performed copy/paste functions while this was happening, a sum of factors that put my censorship online at somethig like 95% for that two day time period), -aside from all that, -consider the normal activist route in times past would be perhaps to post their information on say telephone poles. The privitization constraints are the internet are designed in that they provide absolutely no telephone poles, no avenue to counter the information heirarchy and their minority control, and they know this. You're more or less reduced to sitting off in your own little corner spouting off, unless you yourself can commodify and begin to clamber up the heirarchy from below zero, and those are ridiculous odds designed to give us the vast bulk vacuity passing itself off as substance that we have already, and entirely gamed culture designed to proclivicate the lowest common denominator.
You can see why I don't 'participate' all that much. The internet is parametered largely to disbar selfhood or depth of thought outside of niche parameters. More bluntly, the attempt to disseminate real information in these forms as an indiviudal is redundant.