[amanaplanacanal]

That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. Is it censorship if The NY Times doesn’t publish your letter to the editor? Is it censorship if I kick you out of my party when you get drunk and start yelling racist slurs? You could take a maximalist view and say yes, those are censorship, but I doubt you would find many people that would say you shouldn’t do those things.

[AnthonyMouse]

Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of speech. If the NY Times doesn't publish your letter to the editor but you can post it on Facebook and have a reasonably proportionate number of people able to read it in practice, it's not being effectively suppressed. If neither they nor anyone else with a similar reach will carry it, that's censorship.

It has nothing to do with who does it and everything to do with whether the idea is being suppressed in practice.

[djrogers]

> That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though.

No - it’s literally the definition of the word censorship: “suppression or prohibition of speech”. It really sounds like you’re trying hard to redefine the word to mean what you want to say, but maybe you should just pick a different word?

[amanaplanacanal]

If that's the definition you want to use, I doubt you could find anybody that is seriously against all censorship. Then it just comes back to where you want to draw the lines.

[rhizome]

Where do you draw the line between censorship (as you define it) and editorial policy?

[djrogers]

This isn’t my definition, it’s the literal dictionary definition.