I suspect there may be people within "urbandictionary" pruning top entries. It could also be that there are activist types outside of that company abusing the report system. I suspect that "urbandictionary" are vulnerable to attack by lawyers, maybe angling for a big buyout (i haven't looked into who owns them), and erring on the side of caution. It is concerning that a website ostensibly documenting the usage of language by the general population is, by such pruning, lying about it. I know the regular dictionary does it, but if anything this is more objectionable because the claim is that it is documented and voted for by non-expert users. It's sad that in future, people likely won't understand what our time was actually like. This is nothing new I suppose, but the hope was that we now had the technology to document our reality. Turns out technology can also be used to better fabricate lies!