I'll try to elaborate. The article distinguishes between moderation and censorship. It does so on the basis of two definitions the author made up. However, a discussion about either these definitions or the distinction between them doesn't make much sense per se, unless the elephant in the room is freedom of speech. So, I wondered: is this article really about that? The examples at the end would suggest it is.
But freedom of speech is not neatly defined by (the negation of) the definition of censorship, or moderation, either the one from the dictionary or the one from the blog post. It's a term that (in the USA) is defined by law and jurisprudence, and is open to some debate, and in other places is just missing and use losely in debates about reform.
If the author wants to use his/her definitions to state a position in one of those debates, fine, but say so.
But freedom of speech is not neatly defined by (the negation of) the definition of censorship, or moderation, either the one from the dictionary or the one from the blog post. It's a term that (in the USA) is defined by law and jurisprudence, and is open to some debate, and in other places is just missing and use losely in debates about reform.
If the author wants to use his/her definitions to state a position in one of those debates, fine, but say so.