I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use?

It might be technically correct to call water a 'clear liquid', but isn't there a better term or name to use, a more accurate and descriptive term to use? A clear liquid can also refer to vodka or rubbing alcohol or even many types of acids. Being clear and using the correct terms are important to the discussion. Overusing the word "Censorship" just because it might be technically correct dilutes the word's meaning. Especially since what's happening most of the time is content curation.

The distinction seems akin to freedom fighter vs. terrorist. If you're arguing in favor of improving the community, it's curation; if you just got shadowbanned, it's censorship. But it's the rules themselves that are at issue, not the mods enforcing them. Since the issue is further restricting discourse on reddit and I am opposed, I use the word censorship.

(I'll add that when it ventures into the realm of truly offensive behavior that can hardly be classified as content, the pro-restrictions term might start to become "justified censorship")

>I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use?

If you remove speech you don't like, it is censorship.

Curation would be tagging content for a front-end filter that excludes content based on its configuration.

… but that comment is then written as though every form of censorship is obviously immoral and bad which is self-evidently not true using this definition of censorship.

Because according to this definition what an editor at a newspaper engages in is censorship - and no one takes issue with that. It is an self evidently reasonable position to like or even love that kind of censorship – but the comment writes about it as though any endorsement of this kind of censorship were self-evidently evil, something not many people will agree with.

You can use this definition of censorship – but then also know that liking or loving censorship in certain situation is also quite reasonable. I want my censors to be fierce and awesome! I want to, after all, read a newspaper worth reading. And why not also moderate much more heavily at Reddit? Is that somehow evil? I think it would be awesome.

I mostly intended my comment to be a shot at the Times' shoddy reporting on this one. You're right that censorship is certainly justified in many contexts. But the article quoted a founder of the EFF in its clear bias towards more.