You have to stop looking at it from the ridiculous and childish private\public perspective and start looking at it in terms of right to exit and availability of alternatives. If a small, 1000 km^2, irrelevant country bans something, that's not a big problem because the residents can easily move out or otherwise subvert the ban. If a giant corporation with monopolistic control of its niche bans a thing and treats certain users unfairly, that's a much more serious violation of free speech. It's all about how easily you can get alternatives, once you reach a certain usage/alternatives ratio, you don't have the right to be "Private", you must be forced to be fair.
The public\private thing is a sort of "Stories for Children" heuristic that used to approximate the truer underlying dynamics somewhat decently, before bad faith authoritarian fan boys milked it into oblivion with cliché "Just build your own X bro" mindless slogans. The original idea being that 'public' things are usually things like states, courts, police forces and other societal structures that are usually very difficult to exit or be free of. While 'private' things are (the cliché example goes) things like gas stations or coffee shops, things you can easily exit and replace. The heuristic obviously breaks down whenever the private entity in question is $GIANT inc.
That's fine, but Reddit shows users their removed comments as if they're not removed [1]. Users don't have a chance to migrate to another group or platform if they don't know they're being censored.
> The freedom to have discussions on topics you want in restricted spaces is not censorship, folks.
I would agree with you if the platform were upfront with users about what gets removed. Unfortunately at this point it isn't.
The freedom to have discussions on topics you want in restricted spaces is not censorship, folks. And it’s (unfortunately) a thing that happens when your space is open to the entire global Internet.