[wccrawford]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

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.

[chiefalchemist]

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.

[gridlockd]

> 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".

[chiefalchemist]

The point is simple:

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.

[bluescrn]

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.