Last I checked, no definition of censorship I know of requires a government entity be doing it. Self censorship, for example, is censorship by definition since you are keeping whatever - opinions, explicit outbursts, etc hidden or edited, but doing it on your own to yourself... it's still censorship though because of that editing, or hiding mechanism being in place. Now, if you tackle the issue from a "is it allowed" or even a "is Google morally allowed to do this" standpoint, the legal answer probably (IANAL) being yes, the moral answer being subjective, personal opinion...
- - Whether it is censorship or not is not based on if the entity censoring is a government entity at all, but rather the act of editing or hiding information.
- - This is a basic definition, something of that effect in pretty much every fucking dictionary definition
- - All Google owning the servers means is they can censor certain things legally - whether it is moral or not IS up to opinion, but going by any textbook definition, it is still censorship.
- - Why do I feel like the OP might be too stupid to understand all this?