Censorship itself comes in many forms, as in the self-censorship you expressed. Definitions of words are complex since they mean different things under differe

Censorship itself comes in many forms, as in the self-censorship you expressed. Definitions of words are complex since they mean different things under different contexts. As we’ve been using it, I believe, censorship involves some type of authority censoring those without power’s voice, whether that’s a citizen of an oppressive country, or a user of a website beholden to the authority if it’s owners. In the broadest sense, then yes, any content that is suppressed falls under censorship, in which case nearly all content we consume is censored. Truly objectionable material such as horrible graphic violent and/or sexual material is censored across almost all venues. In practice, this is usually not referred to as censorship, and I think it would take some sophistry to assume the parent is implying all suppression of any kind is “censorship”. Instead the context I understand we are talking about is in line with religious, political censorship etc, where there is a motive to impose moral values, or hide facts from the public. So while you could define censorship as any suppression whatsoever, context matters. And when the context involves the parent talking about “free speech rights being censored” then the historical aspect and that context is what should be considered. In that context, calling moderation of internet comments “censorship of free speech” is both horribly uninformed of historical examples of true censorship of free speech, and also a false dichotomy (either we have 100% free speech or horrible censorship).