Quote Originally Posted by BRC View Post
I mean the positive light is that they want to protect the health of the brand by having a method of excluding offensive or hurtful content.
I would suggest the health of a brand depends rather more substantially on something other than social media campaigns against things people don't like, or on being tarred with bad products from bad people who don't work for them.

Case in point being the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Was originally to be published under the d20 trademark from c. 2000. The d20 trademark also got amended to include a "community decency" wordology, and WOTC used that to pull the licence for that product. It was because the OGL existed that the product still was published. I didn't see the towers of WOTC come crashing down because of it; by early 2000s standards the book was an eyebrow-raiser at least. (Although on a cold read these days, it's almost middle of the road if you exclude some of the interior art. It's kind of sad the book's acknowledgements contained more names of models than playtesters, but oh well.)