> When you say "self" censorship, does that mean?
I mean that a publisher, as a corporate entity will do what it needs to operate as a business and that might mean, for example, choosing to not to do business with people/companies/countries/whatever that might have any form of negative impact on the business but isn't illegal.
> I think you can have free press without institutional censorship
Not sure what institution you refer to here.
> this country
Not sure which country you refer to here. Spotify is a Swedish but global company, Rogan is from New Jersey... This story is pretty universal I think.
> What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship?
I'm not "calling" for censorship. I'm just stating the obvious: that companies and people doing self-censorship isn't something you can be for or against, "call for", protest against, or ban. You can argue that it's unfortunate when the "landscape of acceptable opinions" shrinks. This is a pendulum that will always, and has always, swung both ways (And is very different between different countries of course).
> intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions
Whenever something even gets near authorities and public instutitutions, we are in a whole different area. That's where actual free speech comes into play. The limit set by authorities on what you can and cannot say. The topic at hand here though is only when a privately owned company chooses to not do business with another company or person.