That's how the government operates, too. The government doesn't actually alter things--it just prohibits their publication or distribution. In affect, the government (and Wal-Mart) delegate the actual alterations to the producers of the content, which is a nice gesture but still censorship.
(The government does actively censor soldiers' letters home to remove sensitive information.)
Conflating private enterprise with government is as fallacious as it ever was. A retailer does not prohibit publication or distribution and does not enforce it's decisions with the threat of violence or imprisonment. It decides what it is and isn't willing to sell. Why is that wrong? Why should they not have the right to do that? Would your opinion change if it were a locally owned sole proprietorship and not Wal-Mart?
I'm not conflating anything. Censorship by the government is violation of human rights. Censorship by private business is usually not. But it is censorship.
In other words, private censorship isn't necessarily wrong. I never argued it was.
People need to learn how to separate descriptive factual concepts like "to censor" from normative moral concepts of right and wrong. We all censor ourselves--for instance, I am censoring myself from flaming you. Likewise, television networks censor their programs, Wal-Mart censors the music they sell, Apple censors the App Store, the military censors letters home from the troops, and the FCC censors the airwaves. Some of these instances of censorship are good, some of these instances are bad, and that's an entirely separate moral argument. It's lazy, imprecise, and duplicitous thinking to couple the concept of "censorship" so tightly with the concept of "wrong" that you can't meaningfully use the word half the time.
You are ignoring the distinctions between censorship by or on behalf of government actors and that by private enterprise or individuals in favor of arguing that because the same word can be used it is impossible to refer to them seperately.
This in spite of the fact that the word is almost universally used to refer to censorship by government authority (usually in a perjorative context) and that the context of the thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750540) lends itself entirely to reading it as an immoral act. Your "entirely separate moral argument" is in fact the one started at the top of the thread. It was in fact the one I was engaged in before being derailed.
"You are ... arguing that because the same word can be used it is impossible to refer to them seperately."
No I'm not--I'm maintaining that distinction the whole way down ("one is a violation of civil and human rights, one is not").
Here's the moral argument made at the top of the thread by codyrobbins:
"If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative."
Here's your argument:
"Apple has yet to censor anything."
I agree with codyrobbins, but I disagree with you. What's so complicated with that? You're repeating yourself and failing to even comprehend my posts. In addition, you've attributed opinions to me I haven't even expressed and thrown out tons of red herrings to boot.
I'm maintaining that distinction the whole way down
Then why do you insist on ignoring the distinction when I use the term? I mean one thing, but you claim I mean the other.
By censor I was referring to censorship a presumably immoral violation of rights such as that done by government, which is how the post I replied to used the term, how the term is most often used, and the only way that makes sense in what you agree started as a moral argument. It is what I have meant the entire time.
(The government does actively censor soldiers' letters home to remove sensitive information.)