Are people confused by why we mean by moderation? Did we lie and call it "speech amplification?" I should think people would be significantly more confused if we began talking about our robust solution to censorship, because by connotation people interpret censorship to be the suppression of criticism and interpret moderation to be the suppression of disruptive behavior, even if by denotation they both involve the same thing.
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.
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.