I'm not sure how the article's authors didn't make the connection of the rule of thirds to the rule of threes. The rule of threes is an ancient idea (at least as old as the Romans, "omne trium perfectum", likely older) and is very clearly connected to the rule of thirds. This article is generally wrong about a lot of things which stems from this fundamental misunderstanding that the rule of thirds is somehow new.
It is an article about censorship. If someone in the USSR were writing an article about censorship, it would be in line with the articles themes to criticize the government. To make explicit the things being censored. It's the same here.
How is it anti-censorship to deliberately refer to someone incorrectly?
If you call a pelican a seagull, I'm not censoring you if I tell you that it's actually a pelican. And if you continue to call it a pelican because you have a problem with seagulls and think they suck, I'm also not censoring you if I point out you're being a jerk. Free speech goes both ways!
This is more like a seagull that wants everyone to call it a pelican on the dubious basis that it claims to have a 'pelican identity', despite not actually being a pelican.
There's nothing wrong with rejecting that demand and continuing to refer to it as a seagull, is there?
