Man, I was hoping it was a cock up, but having looked now, and looked through past days, I'm really doubting it. :\

EDIT 1: For ease of viewing I tossed the comparison up on imgur: http://imgur.com/kBHJ0eq

EDIT 2: Squinting, it looks like they still have the 2-7-2014 date running in the gap between the 2nd & 3rd panel, but it's copyright is clearly from 1990-something. So, it's clearly intentional, I now wonder if it is Yahoo or S.A. himself providing the alternate.

Wow, nice catch. Sadly it looks very intentional. You can see the Yahoo version has been edited to include the date "2-7-14", even though the copyright still says 1995.[1] It is indeed a 1995 cartoon.[2]

I can't imagine Scott Adams being OK with this.

[1]: http://imgur.com/kBHJ0eq (thanks to another commenter for the image)

[2]: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-01-28/

can you post a link to the difference? i don't see anything on the dilbert site for the 7th feb, and the one on the yahoo site doesn't seem particularly inflammatory.

http://i.imgur.com/1IueyOE.jpg

It's a contentious issue, and a bit of an inflammatory comic. I'm not surprised they pulled it.

Imagine it was about abortion or gun control.

What's the point of republishing Dilbert if you're going to censor what you don't like? Nobody forced them to publish Dilbert, it was a choice they made. Is it okay for Amazon to redact portions of books that are contentious?

Furthermore, the date on the comic was apparently edited to hide what had been done. If you don't want to publish something because it's contentious, then IMO have the balls to state as much and simply don't publish anything - don't pretend the comic doesn't exist.

It's a contentious issue amoung ignorant biggots - imagine if it was about the sphericality of the Earth or evolution.

They're probably just trying to be sensitive to their audience and sponsors. Google also censors pornography because a subset of users are offended by it.

Really?

Scott Adams' mild political satire is understandably censored because it is comparable in offensiveness to porn?!

By the way, Google doesn't censor porn. They categorises it. If they were either dropping all porn or replacing all porn images by pictures of little ponies, that would be censorship.

I don't think equating porn and gay rights is very helpful.

It helps to highlight our cultural biases. In some cultures pornography is more acceptable than homosexuality. These are just different prejudices that different people hold. It's not obvious which is more right or wrong.

One is a choice and the other is not. It's obvious to me which prejudice is wrong.

Both are offensive to some section of the population...

> Google also censors pornography because a subset of users are offended by it.

Censoring pornography doesn't infringe anyone's human rights.

Please, so that we can test such an assertion:

1. Define human rights

2. Provide a methodology by which they can be objectively known.

Is a right to be left alone to one's culture a human right? Is a right not to be deprived by outside powers of one's native language a human right? And who gets to set the limits on the outer limits of such a right? (i.e. is the right to advocate the position that genocide of, say, black folk, is desirable a human right? What about pornography?).

My own sense is that usually these have no epistemology behind them and are based solely on projecting one's a priori assumptions onto the world.

Why? Pornography is speech too.

when a private entity chooses what it displays to the public I have no qualms with it, its censorship when a government entity chooses what you can or cannot view, say, or read.