I mean, I'm just getting tired of the obvious pandering (Yes, it's pandering, or else they wouldn't even bring up the character's sexuality outside of the product.)
Also, a lot of the time they do this, the character's sexuality ends up being their primary (or only) personality trait, which is just bad writing.
A reminder, the most readily available definitions of "censorship" do NOT define that censoring has to explicitly be done by a government.
For example, Wikipedia even states that "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."
Now, with that out of the way, is THIS an example of censorship? The way I see it, yes. Ebay is banning a specific type of media product that was, up until now, allowed. That being said, Ebay is also entirely within their rights to do this, since they are NOT a government entity.
@dragonsama: The problem with the original wasn't that it was simply an edited stock photo, it's that it was a lazily edited stock photo. The hand in the edited photo, for example, is WAY off model from the in-game model for Tali.
I hope they have the money to pay their legal fees. It's more an oligopoly than a monopoly right now, and, as far as I can tell, Valve hasn't really done anything illegal with their admittedly large presence.
If anything, Epic has engaged in more economically abusive actions than Valve, especially in more recent time. (I.E. Predatory Pricing and Exclusive Dealing, though due to Epic's current non-dominant status, it doesn't quite count as anti-competitive.)
LesserAngel's comments