By that logic you could call regular ad blocking censorship, because it does exactly the same thing as parent described, only without AI and less effectively. I see a difference between algorithmic feeds that I have no control over that are designed to boost the companies goals, and an opt-in tool (hopefully an open one) running locally and modifying the content presentation to remove things I don't want in the first place
Censorship that many people, myself included, agree with (I don't believe all censorship is harmful) but it is clearly censorship.
But the real problem is assuming everything an AI blocks will be an "ad." Why is this the only instance where the slippery slope doesn't apply? This is different than a normal ad blocker that uses specific heuristics to block specific elements - an AI will be employed to make "intelligent" editorial decisions based on interpreting the intent of the content. What happens when it decides - or is ordered to decide - that political advocacy or the promotion of certain ideas or contrary narratives amounts to "advertising" them?
It's literally just enforcing wrongthink, most likely using closed source centralized services run by corporations who will be harvesting and selling your data to advertisers anyway. But it's cool because ads. It's not cool when it's Nazis or doxxing transgender people or spreading conspiracy theories or plotting sedition, but it's definitely cool if Justin Whang wants to sell me on Nord VPN.
