[naasking]

I don't think the distinction is as clear as you imply. Facebook is a multinational corporation that is arguably more powerful than many governments, and it can and has swayed elections.

At what point are Facebook's "moderation" decisions "censorship"? You're effectively saying that it's only when moderation is driven by some kind of government policy, which completely erases the factors that actually matter in evaluating the danger of any given suppression decision, ie. understanding of harm, considerations of power and oppression, etc.

[JohnWhigham]

It's moderation when it's content I don't like. It's censorship when it's content I do like. Period. That's how it's treated in the public discourse. Accept this, and let's build upon it.

[shkkmo]

While there are people who misuse the s to score political points, that doesn't erase the real differences in sense and meaning behind them.

Strictly speaking, moderation is a subset of censorship. The key aspect of moderation is that it is generally done by community members (usually volunteers) and done to enforce standards agreed with by the community. Other forms of censorship generally come from outside a community to enforce some rules the community does not support.

Thus perspective and community identity are integral to the distinction but there is still a basis by which you can objectively view the powwr dynamics and distinguish moderation from other forms of censorship (such as corporate censorship or government censorship.)

I do think the term "moderation" is a misnomer when applied to Facebook and Google as their moderators are generally not part of the communities they censor.

[throwaway3699]

Moderation a conversation implies somebody is getting threatened with their comment being deleted or account suspended. That is censorship. Moderation is just the brand friendly term for it.