That would be a fair judgment if publishers and publications were still self-owned and taking their own risks. The people ultimately making the decisions don't even look at the information they're suppressing, or attempt to find out who the potential audience might be. Five different publishers turning down a manuscript might ultimately all be owned by the same corporation. If the public doesn't already know about something, you are not allowed to tell them about it. This is a dictatorial stranglehold on the dissemination of knowledge.
Academic censorship is even more insidious because it is pompously dishonest.
Academic editors have been known to delete statements that diverge too far from the common wisdom within the profession. Heretical opinions and even uncomfortable yet documentable facts are excised from scholarly books, articles, and textbooks, so that there is no danger to the status quo. And commercial publishing no longer offers an alternative. The only effective action in this context, I believe, is self-publishing. Suppose you do manage to gain a following, and become well-known enough that your views and ideas interest people.