I think that comes down to what their reasons were for taking it down.
Tom Coates

Just in terms of the calculus here, why isn’t it more embarrassing for the publication to take it down? It only draws more attention to the controversy and the original article, and it suggests an admission of guilt. This may be something more important to Esquire’s editors than to Hearst executives, but the point remains.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.