I think dang meant the two statements to be dependent and expository. The second is explaining what is meant by the first. One's subjective take on a piece of c

I think dang meant the two statements to be dependent and expository. The second is explaining what is meant by the first. One's subjective take on a piece of content determines whether one would call censoring that content "censorship" or "moderation"—I ignore "curation" because I think that's quite a different thing, a sort of reverse censoring that is more akin to highlighting. Whether an act is moderation or censorship is definitely still censoring, but it's only going to be called censorship if one subjectively agrees with or accepts the censored content. Otherwise, the act of censoring that content will be called moderation if one subjectively disagrees with or rejects the content as something others ought to see and experience. I could be mistaken, but I don't think dang was suggesting censorship is objectively and intrinsically pejorative, but that a person's biases determine whether censoring is seen as a positive or negative action, and informs the word used to describe the act. Of course, I'm admittedly accepting there is a difference between censoring (the action that results in censorship or moderation), moderation (the subjective act that positively serves an agenda), and censorship (the subjective act that negatively serves an agenda). In so doing, I admit that my own use of the terms is subjectively informed by my reception of the content (and think it illustrates what dang was after).