No, there are just different definitions for a word and context, everyone know exactly what is meant in this case.
It doesn't matter if it is limited to a specific platform or consensual. China also censors what people can read only on their internet. But its still "actual censorship" even if you can just go to another place.
This is exactly the kind of useless arguing about definition. It doesn't matter if the word is used wrong, if it is used for a lack of a better one. You can disagree with that but unless you come up with a better one you aint contributing anything. You just deflect the discussion away form the actual topic/problem. Its about the (negative) effect the [insert "your better word for consensual censorship form a private company that has no obligation to reason their action" here] has on the people of this planet. It looks to me like you dont see a problem so you question the word used to express it instead.
Seems to me the term, restriction of speech or moderation work quite fine for what you're describing. Censorship should be restricted to the use of those situations where the speakers have no recourse, such in the case of government Censorship.
This is exactly the kind of useless arguing about definition. It doesn't matter if the word is used wrong, if it is used for a lack of a better one. You can disagree with that but unless you come up with a better one you aint contributing anything. You just deflect the discussion away form the actual topic/problem. Its about the (negative) effect the [insert "your better word for consensual censorship form a private company that has no obligation to reason their action" here] has on the people of this planet. It looks to me like you dont see a problem so you question the word used to express it instead.