that they care to protect white supremacy or to project homogenization.
Only government can legally censor.

Sorry I wasn’t clear. What I meant was that there is a tendency for habits and patterns to emerge in publishing as in anything else; that the need to project financial profit can increase reliance on ‘sticking with what works’ and this can end up producing “passive censorship” and result in “homogenisation”. This then spreads as much media is now multinational.

Passive censorship ~ censorship by neglect/omission.

Homogenisation ~ more of the same (however varied that “same” is.)

I am not familiar with “Girls”. Apparently popular series as you speak of first season? About “Girls” generic — but surely not all girls ever? Surely if people didn’t like it they just didn’t watch it? Was it an interactive show (you talk about participation)? In which case, surely with a bit more participation you could crowd-source/co-write characters and their lines to get a more representative show…

Was it a case of this show about girls by Dunham or no show about girls ever? I thought that this was what markets were supposed to be for!

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

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