Now anyone who receives an offer like this from Spotify will have to consider the possibility of having their brand censored. This will either drive up the cost to Spotify or simply make content providers refuse all together. So, unless Spotify has decided to quit this business plan, I don’t think this is a good long-term solution.

I do think what happened is Spotify saw its DAUs and subscribers dipping, and after the bloodbath in $FB stock last week, got freaked out and abandoned a long-term business plan to prevent a dip in users this quarter.

Uh, plainly you do. The commenter's main point was that what the broadcaster did was not censorship (and whoever calls it that "need a reality check"). You're saying it "still is in my book". What much more different can the two of you be on this issue?

Part of the reason for the disconnect here probably lies in the fact that the definition given in the WP is overly broad and vague. The way the term is usually used, it strongly suggests some outside party, typically an authoritative body like a government, intervening to say "you cannot publish this". Basically, there needs to be some element of outside coercion for the term "censorship", or even "self-censorship" to apply.

And no -- the weight of public opinion does not constitute "coercion" in this context.

That's why when a company wakes up and realizes "gee, it turns out publishing endless amounts inflammatory crap that does not contribute to discourse and with essentially no artistic value is actually not so good for our overall image and business model" -- that's not what the term "censorship" was is really meant for.

I just think we need to be able to say hey, this is censorship, and it's not necessarily wrong because of XYZ reasons and it's fine and above-board. Spotify's got the rights to the show and nobody can or should be able to compel them to broadcast something they don't want to.

However, pointing to a nebulous category of "proper censorship" (which sounds like pretty much exactly the same thing, just perpetrated by a state actor instead of a private corp) as a way to invalidate the use of the word "censorship" in this context seems dishonest. Not to mention that it strikes me as odd to refer to some instances of censorship as "proper" compared to others.

Let's go along with the "proper censorship" narrative and put on the tinfoil hat for a moment. It would be easy for a sufficiently motivated state actor to create or compel a private company to acquire the rights to works that they want censored, and then simply use the private entity as a front to carry out the censorship on the government's behalf.

I'm not implying that's happening here, but we need to recognize that mostly anything is possible.

If I'm entirely unable to access a work today that was freely available yesterday, it has been censored. The devil's in the details, but the semantics and results here are very clear.

I would argue: "No - either the supermarket, or Coca-Cola decided it wasn't selling very well."

In case you're too young to remember New Coke -- and how its sudden removal was so traumatic for an entire generation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

I hate to say this is a strawman because claiming logical fallacy is overused in Internet discourse, but that's what your comment feels like. Along with some ageism sprinkled in as an afterthought.

Of course censorship is not applicable to a physical product. I have only referred to the censorship of "speech, public communication, or other information."

Sorry, I don't get where you are going with this at all.

"If your local 7-Eleven had Oui and Hustler on its racks last week, but they are gone this week, it has been censored."

I would argue: "No - 7-Eleven either decided just those titles weren't selling all at that well. On top of generating negative press, and driving away families with children."