20th century definitions of what constitutes censorship, or freedom of speech, these may be overly simplistic for the era of the all powerful tech giants. So sure, I agree, it’s not enough to say ‘the government aren’t banning it, therefore its not censorship’
Even looking back to the late 20th century, it was already more complicated than that. I certainly would consider it censorship when conservative pressure groups would ensure that, say, a gangster rap album would not be stocked by major retailers, which meant that the record label wouldn’t release it in its existing form, while retaining the rights to it. There’s no state intervention involved at all there, but the end result is nobody was allowed to choose to buy or listen to that album. Stuff like this informed my early understanding of politics.
Here’s the thing though, when a record label did that, the album in question was effectively actually banned. Likewise with the VHS “video nasties” in the UK. Likewise with every piece of media that was pulled from distribution because of some moral panic, every scene that gets cut from a movie before it can get certification.
In these cases, we genuinely are completely prevented from being allowed to make an informed, adult choice to seek this media out for ourselves and make our own minds up, and in many of these cases this was down to decisions made entirely by private entities, without intervention by the state, and yes, I would say that is censorship.
Now, if Google were to completely remove something from all search results without trace, if Facebook or Twitter were to participate in a media blackout of a breaking news story, if Spotify were to remove a podcast but refuse to release the legal rights for someone else to stream it, if every major ISP in a country blocks all access to a website, then I’d say these are comparible.
These cross my own line about what constitutes censorship (you’re welcome to play semantic games about the definition of censorship until you’re blue in the face, but I won’t be partaking)
Spotify terminating their contract with a podcaster for whatever reason they want, Facebook removing a page that pedals disinformation or hate speech, YouTube de-monitising a channel, Google removing something from the first page of results and ranking higher quality information over it? These just don’t cross the line for me. I don’t consider them censorship or overreach. They don’t worry me, and in fact, when some profiteering pedlar of harmful medical misinformation has their reach limited? I celebrate it, I feel no conflict over doing so, I don’t feel like a hypocrite, it does not cause me to lose any sleep.
