No. Censorship is the suppression of speech.
If you don't sell a book because you don't think it fits your store, or you don't think it's profitable, that's not censorship.
But if you refuse to carry a book SPECIFICALLY because you don't like the message, then that IS censorship.
Some forms of censorship are illegal, and some forms are legally required. But that doesn't mean that it's not censorship just because you agree with that's being censored.
In this case, sure, "censorship" is literally the suppression of speech but it's a much bigger idea than that. It's this huge institutional power dynamic. And so if you want to define it as something smaller where say white people getting in trouble for saying the n word is censorship then that's fine but then the word loses all the impact because if that's what you consider censorship then almost everyone is going to be in favor of it to some degree. It's not this inherently evil dystopian thing anymore. But then rhetorically you rely that fact that impact is "sticky" so when you say "well this thing I don't like is censorship oOoOoOooO and my line of reasoning supports that" you're kind of betting that the reader doesn't take notice that in the universe you've constructed censorship is pretty benign.
If that is the point where you begin to care, then it's probably much too late.
Then they redefined censorship to be only if the government does it. Thats having your cake and eating it too.
If you consider that censorship, then you’ve gone a long way toward convincing me that your definition of censorship is an OK thing to do.
No, it most certainly is censorship. It is also business. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I'd also note that it is completely legal, but that I (personally) think that such practices are harmful.
> shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books?
A shoe store? That's not a good analogy. I wouldn't complain that Spotify doesn't offer downloads of popular software, would I?
Would people complain if Barnes & Noble suddenly pulled a number of "controversial" books from their shelves after public outcry?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
I mention this because arguably, allowing covid to proliferate means thousands of deaths, long COVID syndrome, and potential for new mutations to arise. These misinformed hucksters are largely out to make their own names and make money, not to educate or because their carefully chosen speech is their "right". Should we allow any financially motivated snake oil salesmen to spew whatever trash he likes into our society, even if it kills one thousand people indirectly?
Censorship is now a taboo word? That's pretty ironic.
Censorship is not inherently a government action, your post is contrary to the actual definition. [1]
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...
When a government tells a company to act, there is always an implicit "or else". That is defacto censorship.
Some definitions have narrowed it's purposes to just "offensive", this one was slightly broader.
Given this meaning, Spotify's action is on the line of security and safety. JRE is taking heat for misinformation about covid, specifically about vaccines and alternative treatments, as well as his history of having platformed Alex Jones.
I'd say preventing snake oil salesmen from selling their products in your market due to safety concerns is a valid employment of censorship. People could actually die due to believing some of these extreme guests. Obviously, legally there is zero problem here since a private company can do as it wishes, freedom of speech doesn't give the freedom to dictate to companies what they must sell.
Stopping someone from spreading ignorance and hate is not censorship. That’s not what one imagines when they think of censorship. This is not stopping someone from saying things arbitrarily.