It has that effect though. It comes from an official position that represents the views of an elected leader, and by extension, has the weight of it being a mandate or statement with enough public attention to see or expect change.

While it may not be in legal terms, many see it as an opportunity to greenlight the bypassing of legal/legislative procedures, especially by those who consider the current administration(s) political allies.

As an example, Jen Psaki has stated in the past that they are working with social media to "handle disinformation", and the likes of wokie Zuckerberg wouldn't hesitate to operate outside of Congress or courts to satisfy the whims of his masters.

What utter piffle. Elected politicians and appointees complain about things in the press every single day, and have done for the entire history of democracy. That is not censorship, or attempted censorship, or anything remotely adjacent to it.

What if the political appointee publicly states they would like Spotify to censor Joe Rogan? Perhaps 'the government' is simply too ineffably abstract an entity to attach to any individual actor commonly regarded as comprising it.