if a restaurant removes people if they stand on their tables and scream weird shit at the other diners, is this "censoring"?
if hackernews removes child porn or spam, is this "censoring"?
if a music venue, who has spent years building a reputation as an amazing place to see goth bands or metal bands or hyperpop bands, is it "censorship" if they don't book a country band?
if your email provider removes spam, are they "censoring"?
i've found this "who decides" things to be getting increasingly ridiculous. the restaurant owner decides. this isn't rocket science. the music venue owner decides. if a gathering place of humans has spent years cultivating a reputation for certain genres, again, goth music, electronic music, rock music, etc... or fine dining, fast food, bbq, etc.. we don't scream from the rooftops when mcdonalds doesn't serve foie gras. we don't run in panic circles and scream "censorship" when a goth club doesn't book nickelback.
we don't clutch our pearls when our email provider removes spam or child porn and proclaim "omg that dick enlargement pill email was removed! censorship! who decides. oh my who decides."
if you want to argue against centralization of services, im right there with you. no large city has 1 restaurant. there are hundreds if not thousands. no large city has 1 music venue, again there are hundreds. different places for different experiences. if you want to argue that having 1 gateway to the internet is an absolutely absurd and terrifying dystopia, ill be in the front of that line with you carrying my pitchfork. and if you want to argue that just a handful of centralized increasingly walled off social media sites is absolutely awful, again, im with you. we need hundreds or thousands of gateways to online experiences, not the small handful we have today. at this point the "who decides" thing becomes naturally irrelevant.