OK, that's it. Direct question, UP, what is your definition of censorship?
Broadly, it's when people suppress speech they consider "offensive" by imposing their values on others or pressuring them to conform to said values.
If a parent tells their child not to swear in public, is that censorship? If people don't buy something because they dislike it, is that censorhsip?
Of course not. One is responsible parenting, and the other is consumers exercising their freedom of choice.
I think we should take this discussion to a new thread.
So here's my deal, UP. You are fond of criticising things as censorship, and have responded to the idea that censorship can ever be acceptable as a ridiculous double standard.
Yet your definition of censorship is not particularly rigorous. A parent telling their child that they shouldn't swear certainly fits your criteria that it be an attempt to to supress speech that is found offensive by getting someone to conform to their values. The only possible ambiguity is whether this counts as "pressuring" or just asking. So I'm forced to conclude you think a parent doesn't pressure their child when asking them to do something.
And yet you think a congresswoman asking a company to pull an app
is censorship. Even though a single congressperson has far less power over Apple than a parent over their child.
Censorship is a complicated concept and not having a precise definition is understandable... but you combine that with the notion that censorship is always wrong and should be condemned at every turn. This combination is problematic (in the literal causes problems sense, not the SJ sense). Having a word you can throw around at will in a very broad spectrum of situations which you charge with strong moral condemnation is the same bullshit the worst Tumblr activists pull.