Moderation is a special case/form of censorship. In many cases, it's a desired or willful filter as the article suggests, but it is censorship of information.
Censorship doesn't have to be forced, it can be agreed to but it's still censorship. Rebranding things to look fuzzy and give positive perception doesn't change the underlying principle.
Manipulation of information be it omission, selection picking, burying in piles of noise, etc are all manipulative tactics most of which are used to follow the spirit/intent of censorship. It happens in restricted environments like China but also happens in less restrictive environments like the US, the method of approach simply changes around what's legal and possible. One could argue censorship approaches in free speech environments are the most resilient because they rely less on the difficult tight controls of information flow nation states like China leverage.
If I run a sci-fi bookstore, and I choose not to stock your book about political philosophy, is that censorship?
If it write an article that reviews your book (wherein, necessarily, I pick and choose what parts of your book I talk about, and also paraphrase [is that the same as “manipulating information”]), is that censorship?
When there is simply too much information for any person to consume, and even too much to be able to _evaluate whether To consume_, what does _not having censorship_ look like?
Yes. You're being censored in this case by the will of markets or perception of the will of markets (consumers at large), less so by the store owner due to systemic constraints they must operate in. Markets indirectly represent the will of mass consumers. There's a reason we have minority protections in government and chose a republic structure over pure democracy, to prevent oppression of the voices of the few by the masses.
>If I run a sci-fi bookstore, and I choose not to stock your book about political philosophy, is that censorship?
If you intentionally chose to ommit the book and it wasn't due to chance omission, perhaps because you hate the author, then yes, it's censorship.
>If it write an article that reviews your book (wherein, necessarily, I pick and choose what parts of your book I talk about, and also paraphrase [is that the same as “manipulating information”]), is that censorship?
It depends on how you choose that information and present it. Is it a representative sample of the book or are you intentionally cherry picking pieces of information, especially out of context, to represent a preconceived opinion you want to portray and not an actual summary? If so, the yes, it's censorship. If not, then no, it's not censorship.
I agree there are logistical constraints that makes reductionism a requirement. The key differences in all of these cases is intent. It's difficult to prove but the question isn't if you had to reduce information for logistic purposes but how and why you chose what to reduce. Did you reduce information for your advantage? Then chances are, it's censorship.
>If you intentionally chose to ommit the book and it wasn't due to chance omission, perhaps because you hate the author, then yes, it's censorship.
They already told you, the reason the book is not published is because it is off-topic. The bookstore sells Sci-Fi books, and they choose not to sell other genres.
If that is censorship then this definition of censorship isn't useful for any discussion we're having right now.