You have the theoretical and the applied. Moderators are people. Algorithms are obtuse and bias can be built in. The solution? Various different sites and outlets with different approaches to moderation (or lack there of) allowing for freedom of expression as well as ideologically "safe" areas in the aggregate.
The real threat and conflation of moderation and censorship is when centralized sites like reddit or facebook put a standardize layer that is enforced across topics and domains. When taken to the point of infrastructure removing site's abilities to exist (such as the stormfront having their domain suspended) then we've clearly veered into censorship. People can complain about moderation on a site or forum (I mean I have), but when the moderation is not contained to the forum, and the site seeks to supplant the distributed world wide web itself, then the line is an arbitrary one.
The real threat and conflation of moderation and censorship is when centralized sites like reddit or facebook put a standardize layer that is enforced across topics and domains. When taken to the point of infrastructure removing site's abilities to exist (such as the stormfront having their domain suspended) then we've clearly veered into censorship. People can complain about moderation on a site or forum (I mean I have), but when the moderation is not contained to the forum, and the site seeks to supplant the distributed world wide web itself, then the line is an arbitrary one.