I'm not sure if you've actually ready the story or you just like the quote, but it's actually not about government censorship, it's about TV replacing books. Even a short Google search will help you out there.
Um, that was my point
slowhand09 spoke of this being Orwellian, but as you point and jf22 point out, these actions are done by private actors, not government
So read that Bradbury quote again, in the context of private companies burning books or deplatforming private citizen speech
"It didn't come from the Government down... Technology, mass exploitation and minority [referring to interests not races] pressure carried the trick"
At a base level comparing a government telling you which fictional truths to believe to a private company providing a technology service is difficult.
You mean "private company deciding what is right and wrong"?
The 1984 comparisons are apt. We already see them unpersoning people and employing memory holes.
They censored the president under phony pretenses. They've censored Senator Hawley's book. They censored other government officials from even uttering the name "Eric Ciaramella", even though he was certainly not a whistleblower and even if so, not legally entitled to such a level of privacy.
But to be more accurate, they're censoring non-liberals. This is evidenced by the fact that actual dictatorial regimes with many many violent deaths on their hands are allowed access to those avenues of communication without a fraction of the editorial control than was the President of the USA.
Other politicians, who have the "D" by their name (the government equivalent of a blue checkmark apparently) are allowed to spread hoaxes and lies for years and call for harassment and violence towards their political enemies, and big tech allows it to stand. Because they agree with it.
One only need to see the Googlers crying in the hallways after Hillary's defeat in 2016 to know why. They got their feelings hurt and vowed to never let it happen again, by any means necessary. And they are people with significant means to control what you may or may not say in the digital public square, if they don't simply decide to unperson you entirely.
With that said, they are only doing what they know the masses want. So in a way, they're just doing the people's bidding. If Google thought the majority wanted Parler and hate speech, they'd certainly have kept it up.
I actually did think it was cool! However, if there were any right wing folks there, naturally they kept quiet.
Also, there are a huge number of conservatives and moderates using Facebook. The main point I’m trying to make is that it is misguided to believe that these companies do not have their very own conscience / worldview / quite strongly held political values.