> our censorship (if we're really going to call it that)
With the possible exception of spam filtering, yes, we should call it that. I'm sure I would agree with many of those censorship decisions, such as e.g. YCombinators decision to censor things harming intellectual curiosity, but just because we agree with some censorship, doesn't make it not censorship. It's important to keep language free of little lies like using milder terms when we want to present something in a better light, because these little lies add up and become habits of both speech and thought.
If we're going to discuss the intricacies of language, we should factor in its connotations as deeply as the denotations. If you think an act of moderation or a company policy has crossed the line into censorship, I think it's more than appropriate to say so. In fact, I'd encourage it. But speaking personally, I don't want to chat in a forum without moderation, and I don't think you add clarity by casting such a wide net. I think you lose it.
And given the volume of posts censored and users banned by social media, where most public debate happens these days, most censorship is now by private companies.