Alice want to talk and bob want to listen, but they need charlie to grab tapes recorded by alice with what she said recorded on them and transport them all the way to bob so he can listen to whatever alice said in those recordings..
The problem is that charlie find alice to be assholes and do not want anything to do with her, and thus is refusing to transport the tapes she record..
Now, Alice can still record the tapes and she can even go and deliver the tapes herself and bob can listen to those tapes when he get those, but neither of then can force charlies to transport the tapes for them..
Now alice and bob are not being prevented from meeting in person somewhere else.. hell alice can even build her own street all the way to bob house if she can afford it..
the point is they want to use someone else existing structure to communicate while not following the rules from that third-party..
either you follow the rules or you built your own infra..
That makes no sense. A paper supplier is not censoring anyone if they can't or won't provide printing paper.
You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone. It's ok if you feel yo have something to say to the world, but that does not give you the right to coerce everyone around you to support your personal project.
No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides. I'm not sure how the paper supplier fits in to this argument. Perhaps it is a good analogy for the original topic.
You stated no point.
You're trying to ignore the fact that businesse relationships require all parts to participate voluntarily.
If one part tries to abuse the terms of those services then service providers are free to not continue with the business arrangement.
Not continuing a business arrangement is not censorship.
Are we supposed to feign ignorance and claim terms of service don't exist anymore?
Terms of service usually are vague bullshit which boils down to "we can drop you whenever we feel like it". And if it's an oligopoly? Well, too bad I guess. It's hilarious leftists support oligopolies now.
You ever try to set up your own email server and then have it be able to send to Gmail addresses? Very very difficult.
No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. In the case of spam, false positives and false negatives can be addressed by the user by adding/removing email from a spam folder. If the user does not have this kind of control, then it can be argued that this is censorship because, after all, who decides what is spam?
If the publisher is prevented from publishing despite having an audience that wants to read them, that is censorship.