Yes, it is censorship. The entire history of First Amendment jurisprudence was set around the idea that powerful people were not allowed to stop political and r

Yes, it is censorship. The entire history of First Amendment jurisprudence was set around the idea that powerful people were not allowed to stop political and religious speech. Marsh v. Alabama is a great example: a company town owned sidewalks that they didn't want religious prosyletizers on. The courts ruled that the fact that they owned the sidewalks and roads is irrelevant. For the entire history of my country powerful people were not allowed to buy up the public square and prevent the little guy from speaking. Everyone had a right to enumerate their grievances in a free and open marketplace of ideas. This has of course changed in the age of the Internet, where a bunch of scheming Stanford grads have bought up the courts, wrested control of the key Internet infrastructure away from the public who funded its creation, and sit there and grin as they take the role of arbiter over all speech on the Internet. The wealth and power disparity between the rich and poor is at its height, and it is clear that there will be no legal or democratic solution to the concentration of power in the hands of a handful of Silicon valley billionaires.