To censor: "to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable" (Merriam Webster). That's not what this is. Nob

To censor: "to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable" (Merriam Webster). That's not what this is. Nobody is reading messages or selectively withholding them. They're denying access to certain parts of the service for people that don't want to agree to the service's contract (I said, mostly jokingly, that this is "generous" because most other services just stop working altogether if you don't agree; I obviously don't think Facebook is the benevolent party here, as the rest of my previous comment made clear). Whether that contract Facebook offers is reasonable and just, or whether perhaps we can consider WhatsApp public infrastructure due to its ubiquity and importance in certain countries, is a separate discussion. The new contract may not be fair to require because people often don't really have a choice to move away, but for it to be censorship there has to be more than "we can't provide you a service because you didn't agree to our contract under which we provide it". If I don't agree that Deutsche Post sells my metadata to third parties, it's not suddenly censorship if Deutsche Post refuses to then deliver my letters. They're not censoring my letters, they're telling me to go and find another delivery service or deliver my own damn letters. Which, to get back to the point, you can do on https://matrix.org https://matrix.org.