It's still possible to have personal judgement if a claim is true.
I assume many people would aggree that preventing bots from spamming a forum is not a form of censorship, even though it might be "technically true" in a sense that muddies the seriousnes of what we usually mean with censorship.
So having dissenting accounts deleted and the company claiming they are cleared as anti-spam does not mean anti-spam suddenly falls within the narrow definition of censorship some people use. It means the company is lying.
But in a few very nefarious cases, censorship is framed as anti-spam, or anti-hate, etc.
Google is on the frontlines of this. They banned InfoWars for example, any other “hateful” sites. They regularly change rankings for the sake of clearing spam, but almost always nerf a few legit sites that then are screwed under the weight of the machine.
Just because they do legit anti-spam doesn’t mean the also don’t do a variety of pretty evil things. Their search results are very liberal leaning, for example. Is that “censorship”? If you think the truth is liberal you may not agree, so it’s easy to see how people can justify almost any censorship as legit (oh it’s just spam/the truth/hate).
To me, Google is the most dangerous company in the world, with a proven track record of bias and a lack of taste.
