Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

What we have here is a group of people who enjoy being outraged about things having fun being outraged about another group of people who enjoy being outraged about things being outraged about things.

Are you joking? The Speedo (aka 'banana hammock') is an Australian invention.

Sure, everyone has the choice to not participate in threads that they don't like. Saying it should be banned because you don't like it surely is 'cancel culture'. If you don't like it, just don't participate. It only takes a teeny bit of self discipline.
Incidentally, as one does I went through the thread to find out where it diverged into the subject area that you don't like. It was this one. Strange to say, it has but one 'like'. From you.

I didn't want to 'confuse' anyone, and I don't believe that I did. All I am saying is that the image has not been 'cancelled' because it is still available and can be used. The fact that a number of publications have exercised their editorial right not to use it is all that has happened. They exercise their editorial rights in many ways. They insist that the text be formatted in accordance with their style guide. They usually have rules about usage of certain terminology. They won't knowingly publish plagiarised material, and so on. I don't see that deciding that they don't like that image is a big thing, certainly not one for people to be outraged about. I actually used to use that image in my teaching. A colleague pointed out that some people found it offensive, so I stopped doing it. It didn't affect what I was teaching, because there were other images equally as good for the purpose, and at the same time people were not offended. I think there are times that people need to be offended, but insisting on a particular test image when perfectly good ones exist is not one of them. So that's what I just don't understand. Why the fuss? Unless people just want to make a fuss. If that's what you want to do there are much more important things to be making a fuss about.

The problem is determining what is the 'lamestream mediatards brainwashing mantras' and what is the real information. That's what people here can't agree on. Both groups think the other is full of 'inept thinkers' swallowing away.

Please do stop repeatedly accusing me of carrying on this discussion in bad faith. I am using the definition of 'cancel' that I understand. Presumably your 'context' imbues a different meaning. If so, you should explain what that meaning is.

Certainly, when publishing anything it pays not to get the wrong side of the publishers. That's been the case for as long as there have been authors and publishers. I'm not seeing anything new here, apart from the point that what the publishers find acceptable changes over time. That also has been the case since the year dot. So I'm really not seeing the point you're making here.

Somewhat insulting to Leonardo. It wasn't ever that great. It was never really a 'test image', more of an illustrative image. It really never had the specificity to act as a good subject in any real test case. Its virtue was mainly in familiarity - for any but the most basic illustrations it was a pretty lazy choice. Moreover, the quality of the original image was sufficiently poor that as techniques improved it was becoming increasingly useless anyway. Finding better images was required and achieved.

Perhaps a little misleading to call it a 'paper'. It's an internet article, not any kind of learned paper. Anyhow, an OK story, but I fail to see the point that you're trying to make.
Are you just having a moan about the decisions that editors make these days - in which case, go ahead - forums like this are just the place for a good moan. Or maybe you're implicitly suggesting that there should be some kind of legislation that ensures that editors only exercise their editorial freedoms in the right way - by which I'd guess you'd mean the way that you agree with. If the latter is the case, could I perhaps politely suggest that not everyone thinks the same way.

Interesting point of view. So you're suggesting that democratic outlets are more likely to be brainwashing than authoritarian ones. I would be delighted to see the evidence to support that, because I would have hazarded a guess that it would have been the other way round, based on historical precedent and all that stuff.