It's censorship to stop someone saying something, not to stop them saying something on your property. The New York Times isn't censoring me by choosing not to publish my incoherent ramblings on their front page.
It is still censorship if you do it on your property. It is your right to do so, not the point here but still censorship. The NYT is a publisher and we did a lot of work separating the two. Currently there are ambitions to moderate platforms because those have more listeners.
As I said, there are enough creators demonetized because they are just controversial. Advertisers don't like that. So what are you arguing here for exactly?
If all publishers, persons and organizations are censoring everyone who is not allowed to use their platform/property to express whatever they want... then it seems to dilute the meaning of censorship into nothingness.
