Property owners are in charge of censorship of their respective property. If you own or have control over the page or property, then you have a right to censor it. Would you think it's 'bad' if you were forced to listen to every Jehovah's witness who rang your bell? Of course you would, because it's your home, the JW's are on your property, and you have the right to censor them.

Is your home 'centralized'? It's an irrelevant question, you are the property owner and you have the right to dictate the terms and conditions of the speech that goes on in your property, just like the owners of a fishing magazine can choose to allow knitting articles or not. That's how property ownership and censorship works.

Now, when the GOVERNMENT does it... that's a different story. We should have freedom FROM government limitations on our speech. The government has neither the right to force fishing magazines to include knitting articles, nor prevent them.