I'm sorry but this censoring argument is getting more and more detached from reality. So now not letting ads run on a website (mind you the advertisers themselves have strong opinions on where they want their ads to run) is censoring?

I'm with you 100%. I thought censorship meant "not allowing you to speak". I guess now it means "not actively helping you profit from your speech".

According to much of HN, any moderation is censorship.

When you have monopolistic power it is.

Advertisers have always chosen where they want their ads to be seen, and what types of content they don't want to be associated with. That's censorship, now?

I just interpret censorship in this context to be equivalent of forbid or ban. It saves a lot of fighting over definitions.

In that light, it is not the advertisers making the decision in this case. It is google refusing to place add for advertisers who presumably want to advertise on zerohedge.

I see this argument repeated many times, X is bad so we must never do X. Any company that does X is bad no matter what. This completely ignores the other side of the story. What is the consequence of not doing X? Censorship is incredibly dangerous tool, but that does not mean it must never be used. At some point the cost of inaction is too high. In this case not taking action could be construed as Google enabling systemic racism.

Of course the above is simplistic. For one I don't know if alternative action existed that would not set a precedent of censorship.

How has it censored anything? Zerohedge still exists. Google isn't the only ad exchange out there.

Google is free to be in the business of whatever it wants. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest Google should be obligated to participate in any business contract. Google can sell adspace or refuse to sell it to whomever they want or don't want.

It's really astonishing how much of a facade the commitment to free enterprise on the political right was now that some conspiracy websites get the treatment they deserve