Government-Approved Censorship

In the modern view of the word, censorship can only be practiced by government.  If Time Magazine refused to publish a particular article, that isn't censorship, it's an editorial decision.  The owners of the magazine are not obligated to publish all submissions, nor could they as there are only so many pages available.  However, if the magazine did choose to publish an article and the FBI showed up to get it removed from the magazine, that would be a clear case of censorship.

In this digital age, magazines are being supplanted by websites, articles replaced by podcasts, TV news is being challenged by online news channels.  The interesting thing about these new platforms compared to the old ones is space limitations.  Where there were only so many pages in the newspaper or a magazine, the size online is virtually limitless.  Only so many frequencies for radio or channels on TV?  Again, essentially limitless with the internet.  With capacity no longer a factor, the editorial decisions are more likely to be questioned.  Nonetheless, if Facebook decides that certain people can't use its site, it is a private platform.  Right?  How does that work for brick & mortar businesses that want to exclude people?  A lot less 'editorial' decision there.

With regard to Joe Rogan, would it be censorship if Spotify acquiesced to demands by Neil Young to take down his podcast?  It is a private platform.  Spotify can choose who is on the site and who isn't.  Nothing censorious about that.  However, what if the government announced a preference?  Even if it doesn't send the FBI, government preferences are often enough to nudge business to adopt the preference.  Does the government have a preference regarding Joe Rogan?  Let's see what Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said recently when replying to a question on the topic:

“Sure. Well, last July, as you probably know, but the surgeon general also took the unprecedented step to issue an adviser on the risk of misinformation and public health, which is a very significant step and admitted that he talked about the role social media platforms have. So our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources for that matter be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as Covid-19. That certainly includes Spotify. So this disclaimer, it’s a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation while also uplifting accurate information. I mean look at the facts right?”

Spotify has taken the step of putting disclaimers on some of Rogan's videos, but the White House is encouraging "every platform to continue doing more..."  Sure, those disclaimers are nice and all, but we think you should be doing more.  If platforms take down content after being encouraged by government, would that qualify as censorship?  I think it would.