Only (potentially) illegality. For example, although it's not clear if voat received any formal legal notices or threats before they banned many communities, i

Only (potentially) illegality. For example, although it's not clear if voat received any formal legal notices or threats before they banned many communities, if they banned them based on their desires about what they want voat to be [1] or pressure from bad publicity/partner problems (e.g., frozen PayPal funds), that's their choice. But if they banned the communities because of valid legal threats, I don't think you can't accurately describe that as censorship. [1] Acknowledgment that their policies and goals may have changed since they became a refuge for disenchanted reddit users considering voat initially had a policy of no censorship