Interesting, but there is a pretty clear difference between censorship to protect an individual and censorship of critisising a government.
Yes, obviously. Nobody is forced to have an absolutist position on censorship just like it's mostly silly to have an absolutist position on anything else.
>Who determines that "pretty clear difference?"
In this case Google, which is a private business. In other cases the government, or the courts. Depends on the issue at hand.
There's nothing contradictory about partial censorship in the same way there's nothing contradictory about having a speed limit.
No. It's a game that was played out long ago by responsible organizations. It's just that the tech industry is stumbling upon it these days.
For example, responsible media outlets don't publish information about rape victims or suicides unless there is a compelling public interest.
I can follow both arguments but there's only room for implementing one in any given society. Societies overlapping like they do now (thanks to globalization and, to no small part, the internet) doesn't make that easier.
And to head off the "no, deleting spam is clearly distinct from censorship," imagine you write a book, so we're dealing purely with ideas.
Obviously, for anyone to read it, you have to promote it. If you post it in too many places or are too "hypey", you'll quickly get banned as spamming. You got censored, there's no way around it.
So we've always been in the "what censorship is OK" realm.
To answer your question:
Protecting a whistleblower's identity is in the interest of US society as a whole. It protects the individual somewhat from persecution which in turn encourages people to blow the whistle on illegal activities, thus benefiting society.
I can't claim to know anything about ciarmella's background, save what hyper-partisan, conservative outlets have spewed. But absent more even-handed coverage, or rebuttals from liberal and left-leaning outlets, the details of his personal history, and affiliations do seem to merit some level of public scrutiny. Anyone interested can look him up on Breitbart, conservapedia /wikispooks, or through any other connservativr outlet (oddly enough, not fox last time I checked). But I'd rather not link to those rags if I'm not confident of the veracity of the information within.