I think the idea that censorship is only censorship when the government does it stems from the understanding that the government can't force a private entity to allow all speech...I'm not going to win a lawsuit on first amendment grounds against my employer just because he fired me for calling him a pussy with weak game. That is, of course, entirely true; a private business or person can and should be able to choose who to allow on its property and remove them for any reason.

This is kind of like those "legal highs" you see in gas stations...many people make the false assumption that because the government isn't stopping you, then there's no issue whatsoever with it. An example that gets brought up from time to time on KiA and TiA in the past no-platforming was almost never used and the free market determined what ideas were shared, now you have students who seem to think a valid form of "protest" flaunting the fact that they won't hear much less consider alternate viewpoints because they aren't having their ideas challenged.

I think without being challenged and debated with the mental muscles needed to support one's viewpoint atrophy and all they can do is repeat the exact same things they said in the hope that you won't again modify your argument to again show why they are wrong.

I know he is the bad guy, but I think the MCU's Loki was right: mankind craves subjugation. The ease with which we give up freedom and liberty is terrifying. When you don't have the ability to see the broad perspective, it's very tempting to give excessive powers to the people in charge so they can keep you safe and comfortable. The problem, of course, is always what happens next: legal authority is almost never given up without war, and power that at one point may have been intended to help will inevitably be in the hands of someone who does not have the same ideals as you or worse still is actively abusing that power.