When Twitter pulled #WhichHillary it could have been a coincidence.
When Facebook deliberately censored a Wikileaks release on Hillary's emails, it was suspicious.

However, when I read this by John Pilger, my favorite openly communist writer, it became obvious that this was no coincidence.

On March 23, my article, "A World War has Begun: Break the Silence", was published across the web. As has been my practice for years, I had syndicated it to an international network, including Truthout.com, the liberal American website. Truthout publishes some important journalism, not least Dahr Jamail's outstanding corporate exposes.
Truthout rejected the piece because, said an editor, it had appeared on Counterpunch and had broken "guidelines". I replied that this had never been a problem over many years and I knew of no guidelines.
My recalcitrance was then given another meaning. The article was reprieved provided I submitted to a "review" and agreed to changes and deletions made by Truthout's "editorial committee". The result was the softening and censoring of my criticism of Hillary Clinton, and the distancing of her from Trump. The following was cut:

"Trump is a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism. Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel
Peace Prize winner Barack Obama... The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system... As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies - just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about hope."

The "editorial committee" clearly wanted me to water down my argument that Clinton represented a proven extreme danger to the world. Like all censorship, this was unacceptable. Maya Schenwar, who runs Truthout, wrote to me that my unwillingness to submit my work to a "process of revision" meant she had to take it off her "publication docket". Such is the gatekeeper's way with words.

It seems that many liberals are all too eager to embrace the worst authoritarian policies of the right-wing, even before Hillary has won the nomination.
That should send a shiver down your spine, because if this is an example of what the Hillary fans will do when she's out of power, what will they do if she wins it all? Because the chances of them "toning it down" are next to zero once there is so much more on the line.

"It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers, but the imperialism of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its open ended nature - its conviction that it represents a superior form of life [while denying its] self righteous fanaticism."
- historian Hywel Williams

The three examples of censorship above, in addition to Markos' Ides of March post, are just the more obvious examples. If the censorship is out in the open, then you can bet there is much, much more self-censorship going on.