I think it definitely is. Creators depend on Ad-Revenue so taking that away when they publish something you don't agree with is censorship. Also Google doesn't have to be a state to engage in censorship, anyone can be a censor i.e a parent who prevents their children watching shows with a gay character.
I think the Anti-Vaccination movement is misleading and eventually harmful to public health.
That said I think censorship should be something that should take place (if it has to) in a public office, not in a corporate boardroom.
Here is what Google should have done. If you google anything related to depression google suggests suicide prevention hotlines. If facebook notices a popular article in your timeline it follows it with a snopes link to check if it is real. In other words Google should place a banner/ad/link that educates people on the real facts concerning Anti-Vaccination.
At the end of the day, Google own their platform and can do whatever they want, but is it the right thing to do? Or better yet is there a better way.
I think that is a brittle and somewhat superficial definition of censorship.
Here is the Oxford dictionary definition:
> The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security
These vidoes are not being suppressed or prohibited though, not even on Youtube. It's just that Google is declining to provision ads, collect revenue, distribute it and take a cut. It seems to me that has nothing to do with censorship, or even editorialising.
Antivaxxers tend to do their proselyting for free. What this may discourage is that professional trolls meddle with it because they promote any "oppressed" outlandish claim to optimize for clicks (and therefore ad revenue).
I actually know one person who earns "consultancy fees" from the mothers whom she first "as a friend" convinces that their babies are "in danger".
There are really people who earn real money by scaring the mothers. And Google is a big part of the problem with their "you will surely want more of the same" algorithms: the "friendly approached" mother googles only once for these topics, sees one of the "anti" videos and then gets from Google many "recommendations" for more and more "anti" stuff, every time she is interested in anything else.
The Google "recommendation algorithms" are the real and huge problem, not only their "monetization".
The same happens with other topics where many lies are involved and the actual harm ensues.
I think the Anti-Vaccination movement is misleading and eventually harmful to public health.
That said I think censorship should be something that should take place (if it has to) in a public office, not in a corporate boardroom.
Here is what Google should have done. If you google anything related to depression google suggests suicide prevention hotlines. If facebook notices a popular article in your timeline it follows it with a snopes link to check if it is real. In other words Google should place a banner/ad/link that educates people on the real facts concerning Anti-Vaccination.
At the end of the day, Google own their platform and can do whatever they want, but is it the right thing to do? Or better yet is there a better way.