Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo?
Because it's not censorship.
And the idea that a corporation with shareholders should in some way show compassion, you're cute.
Yahoo should have considered the negative publicity, proving that pre-paid means nothing after death. More likely they have legal advice that keeping a site which will be cited as a suicide advocate is more expensive in the long term than lost revenue.
It doesn't matter that the site is a personal opinion and as neutral as it can be while still explaining. If a ridiculous court case popped up, Yahoo would have to defend itself with no way to either pass the blame onto the guy, or at least have him explain that it was not an advocacy position. Because he's dead.
And that is the important bit. If Yahoo had found out about this while he was alive, he would have been able to switch providers, and probably ask for a refund. But it was not an actual suicide note until he did it, so it could have qualified as fantasy or even therapy.
When the dude bit it, it became reality, and business hates ties to reality when it could point to legal issues later. Kind of a catch-22 where it doesn't bother Yahoo until it's too late to talk to the dude about it.
But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.