**TL;DR – The terms deplatforming and censorship are so interchangeable that it has resulted in majority of people thinking it’s the same thing. However, while deplatforming is censorship, to be more specific, it is a form of censorship.** [Wikipedia defines deplatforming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming) – which is also known as no-platforming as an “attempt to boycott a group or individual through removing the platforms (such as speaking venues or websites) used to share information or ideas"[1] or "the action or practice of preventing someone holding views regarded as unacceptable or offensive from contributing to a forum or debate, especially by blocking them on a particular website."[2] While on the other hand, [Wikipedia defines censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship) as “the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.” So then, the term deplatforming refers to a more specific approach regarding censorship that specifically advocates for and involves the removal of an individual or a group from a platform – where information such as ideas, opinions, etc. are shared. While the term censorship, on the other hand, is more all-inclusive and refers to all forms of censorship (in any number of contexts), since it is involved with restricting speech, public communication or any other information. [A specific example of deplatforming can be seen in the case of former US President Donald Trump](https://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/debate-big-tech-was-right-to-deplatform-trump-online/) – when he was both suspended and in other instances permanently removed from websites such Big Tech, Reddit, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Twitter, as shortly after a far-right mob stormed the Capitol complex on January 6. Most importantly, these tech companies all argued that deplatforming Trump was accountability, not censorship. So then, they censored his content by deplatforming him. [And an example of a different form of censorship can be seen in the case of Beijing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinas-scary-lesson-to-the-world-censoring-the-internet-works/2016/05/23/413afe78-fff3-11e5-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html), where China prevented harmful information (that was meant for the Communist Party) from entering the country. Moreover, [here is further evidence that deplatforming can be reframed as censorship](https://theconversation.com/does-deplatforming-work-to-curb-hate-speech-and-calls-for-violence-3-experts-in-online-communications-weigh-in-153177). So then, it’s important to note that deplatforming or no-platforming, or social media canceling are all various forms of censorship. Moreover, depending on which term is used is highly dependent on the context within which a particular type of censorship occurs.

**TL;DR: Technically, only the government can illegally censor, and people being de-platformed are rarely taken off of every single platform.** From a legal perspective, de-platforming is not censorship. According to the first amendment, [censorship can only be imposed by the government](http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship). Private businesses like social media companies are not required to give everyone a platform. Logistically, taking away people's social media platforms does make it more difficult to be heard, and maybe some laws should be updated with the introduction of the internet. But then again, when the constitution was written, pretty much the only thing comparable to social media in terms of mass communication was the newspaper or the printing press, and neither of those had government regulations imposed on them. Nowadays, people have even more alternatives to the mass communication outlets of today - people can start their own websites, go to different social media sites (since there are countless so being de-platformed from a few doesn't leave you option-less), or even email/mail lists. Based on this, there doesn't seem to be a dire need to expand the definition of censorship to private businesses.

**TL;DR: Deplatforming is censorship performed by private companies. Deplatforming gives companies the power to control the ideas, language, beliefs, and facts the public is exposed to on the nation’s largest information-sharing sites.** Censorship, as defined by the Oxford American College Dictionary, is the “prohibition of any [information] that [is] considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” Internet users must abide by certain terms of service – which contain company-specific codes of conduct – to use most modern social media and online forums. The lines of acceptable online speech blur in the small text of these “codes of conduct” sections found in most terms of service agreements, however, because these codes are often completely interpretational. Because private companies have the right to arbitrarily create and enforce these unique codes of conduct, they can and do silence references, language, rhetoric, and information they deem “obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security” with impunity. Barring users from social media platforms or forums on such charges, termed “Deplatforming,” is, therefore, the poster child of censorship. Additionally, because these companies dually write and interpret their own codes of conduct (essentially internet quasi-laws), they have the power to deplatform those they simply don’t like or don’t agree with under the guise of “code of conduct violations.” And as Big Tech’s power continues to snowball, so does their control over the information and language used on the nation’s largest information-sharing sites. As [Tim O’Brien](https://www.ethicalvoices.com/2019/11/18/tim-obrien-deplatforming-and-situational-ethics/) of Ethical Voices puts it: “And maybe more importantly, who should be given the power to deny speech? Do we want that to be in the hands of the government, or another special interest, or somebody that opposes us, or a politician, or a company? Do we want the digital platforms deciding what speech is okay or not? And how do they do that? What criteria do they use? So, I think it’s a slippery slope. I started in journalism and I’ve been in public relations all these years, and I feel that the First Amendment is sacred. And as ugly as it is when people sometimes exercise their free speech, I still think having the freedom of speech is something we need to protect.”

So today the Sheffield Council in the UK announced that they wouldn't allow comedian Roy 'Chubby' Brown from performing at one of their venues. They said that his jokes did not conform to their values and that he was racist, sexist, homophobist... all the "ists" and "isms". So this is a local government not the state, but does this violate freedom of speech? The venue is tax-payer funded and the councillors are elected by the people. Does this equate to the state denying someone freedom of expression?