I am saying that your ‘copypasta’ paragraph doesn’t capture such things very well.

The relevant portion of my spiel says this:

Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech.

I believe that addresses the idea that threats meant to suppress speech⁠—be they threats of lawsuits, violence, or some other negative consequence⁠—as a form of censorship. I’ll see if I can’t come up with a version of that line to address your criticisms, but the point of my copypasta is that it’s meant to be short and sweet so it doesn’t become a whole-ass article in and of itself. I’m always willing to expand my thoughts on the matter⁠—I’ve got two articles on this site that do exactly that, and I’m more than willing to have a discussion in the comments for the same purpose (as we’re doing right now).

That’s why I think it’s more relevant to think about censorship in the context of what the censor has control over.

I think I can address this position as my comment goes on.

It is Twitter deciding that a slur is unacceptable on their platform and punishing people who do so.

I still have a problem with the idea that moderation is censorship precisely because it means to conflate situations like that with the intentional suppression of speech. You’re essentially telling me that if a queer-friendly Mastodon instance decides to defederate with another instance because the second instance allows anti-queer speech to go by unpunished, the queer-friendly instance is being censorious. I can’t buy into that logic any more than I could if the political leanings of the instances were switched.

if you don’t bear in mind that moderation decisions to restrict speech are, at minimum, censorious in nature and intent, then you don’t give the proper weight to the question of whether or not you do enact those restrictions

…okay, this is a fair point. But I can’t buy into the argument just yet because I don’t see moderation as censorious in nature. I look to an article titled “We Don’t Do That Here” for the logic behind my thinking on this:

[“We don’t do that here”] is a conversation ender. If you are the newcomer and someone who has been around a long time says “we don’t do that here”, it is hard to argue. This sentence doesn’t push my morality on anyone. If they want to do whatever it is elsewhere, I’m not telling them not to. I’m just cluing them into the local culture and values. If I deliver this sentence well it carries no more emotional weight than saying, “in Japan, people drive on the left.” “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals.

That’s what moderation is to me, at least in an idealized way of thinking about it. I don’t see it as censorious precisely because it isn’t telling you to shut the fuck up everywhere⁠—it’s telling you “this is unacceptable behavior in this space, so don’t do it again or there will be consequences”. You can choose to disregard the warning or exercise discretion; in either case, you haven’t been censored.

Twitter censoring things on Twitter is distinct from, say, the Quebec government decreeing you cannot put up signs in English. The specifics matter, because the scope, actors, and intent all inform whether or not the decision is a good one.

Therein lies my issue with your arguments: Censorship, to me, is evil. To refer to any kind of censorship as “good” grinds my gears because censorship isn’t supposed to be “good”. We aren’t supposed to look for ways to carry out “good” censorship.

I’m opposed to government-backed book bans. And while it’s easy to say that when I stand opposed to the removal of books with content I find acceptable, it’s much harder to say that about books with content I don’t like. But that’s why we have personal principles: I should be as upset about a public library being forced to remove a book by that dipshit Tucker Carlson as I would be about that same library being forced to remove a book with queer-friendly content. That’s because neither book should be pulled off the shelves because someone disagrees with their contents. (The best libraries offend everyone.)

if someone complaints to me that Twitter censored … the Babylon Bee for calling a woman a man, my response is: “Yes, and good for them.”

My response would be “it isn’t censorship to be told that your speech isn’t acceptable somewhere”. I mean, if I kick someone out of my home for saying “Everything Everywhere All at Once sucked”, I haven’t stopped them from saying that⁠—i.e., I haven’t suppressed their speech. All I’ve done is shown them the door, which is another way of saying “we don’t do that here, so please go somewhere else and do it”.

Three primary ideas form the backbone of my views on censorship and moderation:

1. Censorship is a sociopolitical evil; we shouldn’t be looking for “good” forms of censorship even if they might make us feel good.
2. Censorship is about suppressing speech from being heard/information from being accessed, which includes actions (or threats thereof) intended to make someone afraid to speak/share information.
3. Moderation doesn’t suppress speech⁠—it asks a speaker to move their speech somewhere else, regardless of whether the speaker is also asked (or made) to leave.

You’re free to challenge those ideas, but as I’ve said, getting me to change them is going to require one hell of an argument.

With all that said: I genuinely appreciate the fact that someone is disagreeing with my views, challenging my ideas, and doing so without being an asshole about it. (Hint hint, troll brigade!)