I don't enjoy being the one to say this but censored is the wrong word. Censoring is something governments do. We can't keep using the wrong words and expect communication and discourse to improve. Words matter.
As a verb, it's used the same as Merriam Webster defines it. There is no need for it to be the government, just someone that is suppressing or deleting things that are objectionable.
Everyone knows what is meant here, so there's no problem with the clarity of communication.
Here? Maybe. But here isn't always here. There is zero value in perpetuating a false narrative. We can't maintain an affinity for LCD and still expect positive change.
Finally, you're making assumptions. I'll leave it at that.
> There is zero value in perpetuating a false narrative.
I agree, it just happens that your narrative is wrong.
There are important distinction to be made between government and private censorship, of course. Nevertheless, the word "censorship" never implies "government censorship".
Censorship laws do not protect against this type of "censorship". So yes, out of context it meets the vanilla definition of the word. Unfortunately, in the current sociopolitical environment where such things are front and center, the word is misleading.
Spotify is not Uncle Sam, and vice versa. Context matters, and therefore censor is an extremely poor choice. It hurts more than it helps. In fact, it's close to clickbait.
These days, corporations are arguably more powerful than governments. Censorship by big tech should be taken more seriously. It might be easy to cheer it on while it’s mostly right-wing voices being deplatformed, but it may not always be the case that these companies are on your side.
No, it isn't, please stop repeating this misconception. Censoring and censorship are not limited to governments.
Many TV stations literally have censorship departments, whose job it is to decide what is and isn't shown, in line with the agenda of the network, not merely what the law mandates.
Context. It matters. It a clickbait-y word in the current sociopolitical environment. It intentionally leads the reader in an unnecessary and biased direction.
Therefore, it's the wrong word. Cencorship laws do not protect this type of "censorship". Now people get confused. And so on.
At best, this is self-sensorship. JRE, at will, entered into a contract. JRE was well aware some shows would not migrate.
It's clickbait. The headline should read: ".Spotify Declines to Migrate Some JRE YouTube Content." Full stop.
What you're saying there now could be said about basically anything. It's your opinion, I somewhat disagree, but also I don't care.
Your original claim is what I care about: "This is not censorship" is what you said (paraphrased). That's wrong. It's a misconception.
Why is that important? Because we should be worried about corporate censorship as well, not just government censorship. In fact, right now, the government is censoring almost nothing, but corporations are using censorship to maintain "good" ideas and narratives in the heads of their viewers while keeping out the "bad" ones. There is no space for "dissident" or "heterodox" views, neither on left-leaning nor right-leaning media. It's polarizing the country. I don't think that's their job.
As a verb, it's used the same as Merriam Webster defines it. There is no need for it to be the government, just someone that is suppressing or deleting things that are objectionable.
Everyone knows what is meant here, so there's no problem with the clarity of communication.