I don't know what the obsession is with the word censorship
the average person doesn't want devs to have to edit their own games due to whiny nitpicky internet outrage, who the fuck cares what word you use for that
I guess it doesn't roll off the tongue
Because "censorship" has gained multiple closely-related-but-not-exactly-the-same definitions, and people tend to transplant an element (inherent badness) from one definition into another in order to "win," or make something supposedly irrefutable.
Same thing happens with "discrimination," and a few other words. One definition of "discrimination" is purely technical, with no moral implications: To distinguish between and treat differently in some way. Another definition does imbue morality: Distinguishing and treating differently for a wrong reason, i.e.
bad discrimination. When people say, "I can't believe it, I was discriminated against," they're using the second definition.
But when given examples of the neutral first definition, everyone acknowledges that discrimination/distinguishing/discernment is extremely useful in the right contexts. You discriminate in favor of loved ones and against strangers in deciding who to let into your house. You discriminate against people that smell bad and in favor of people that smell good when deciding who to date.
In arguments, what should happen is that people who are trying to argue that something is
bad discrimination should show that 1. it's discrimination, and 2. it's bad. But people don't do that. They just inject it into the first definition and say, "See? It's discrimination. Therefore it's bad!" They're grafting the "bad" part from definition 2 onto definition 1 so they don't have to argue the actual badness.
This was a long, roundabout way of saying the same thing happens with all sorts of words, including censorship. If pushed, everyone (except benji) agrees that the state should prevent a man from showing his sex videos to kindergartners. Everyone (except dennis) believes child pornography should be illegal. That is absolutely censorship.
But the word censorship has grown a second definition that includes an innate "and is bad." So RE is saying "Of course it's not censorship! [Because it's not bad!]" and the opposite mob is saying "Of course it's bad! It fits the definition of censorship!" But RE is ignoring the neutral definition of censorship to claim their opponents are wrong, and their opponents are showing it fits the neutral definition, then grafting the "it's wrong" on from the second definition.