It’s not censorship if you don’t let people into your house. It’s not censorship if you don’t let people paint on your walls.

I gave a dictionary definition of censorship and you’re trying to make analogies to trespassing and vandalism. Just use the definition.

This isn’t the government.

Censorship isn’t exclusive to governments. Private entities and public corporations can perform acts of internal censorship or even self censor in external communications.

This isn’t the prevention or suppression or public speech. They can (and do) post that shit. You are free to go read it.

There are countries that ban pornography, however someone outside the country is still free to see said pornography. Does the suppression of pornography in that country cease to be censorship simply because some people are still free to see it?

Almost no media platform is required to host or publish any content they don’t want to. What do you not understand about this?

Yep, and that’s why there are many corporations that self censor according to their own sensibilities. And that what this whole thread is about, the question of whether to censor rammy.site by suppressing their content via defederation.

There’s nothing confusing about this unless you have mixed feelings about the word censorship itself but still support the suppression of speech you don’t like(and to reiterate, i find the content on rammy.site bigoted and high objectionable, and want it censored)