If you think it means "the prohibition of the possession of thought or the ability to transmit that thought via your own mechanisms", then I am against it.
Censorship is censorship. "Good censorship" and "bad censorship" is a slippery slope.
The only type of content that should be censored in a given jurisdiction is content that is against the law.
What should be against the law is an entirely different discussion to be had amongst inhabitants of that sovereign jurisdiction.
When multinational corporations impose censorship that doesn't align with the laws of a given jurisdiction, it is tantamount to imperialism.
You have to draw the line somewhere on when speech is defended, and when owners of sites or infrastructure should be legally and morally required to host content they don't support.
My line is at the ISP/DNS level. Let people build their own sites to publish whatever they want, and regulate ISPs and registrars as quasi-public utilities with certain societal obligations.
I don't think that obligation should extend to individual websites.