The difference is how broad you want to define censorship. I think we're talking about illegal censorship. Like stuff that is against the first amendment right to free speech.
Deleting a post on gamefaqs is "technically" censorship in SOME definition, sure, but it's not significant in the way we are using the word.
But I don't even think that matters here. With private vendors like Walmart and movie theaters... is it really censorship because they choose NOT to play a film? Do you know how many films they choose NOT to play? Are they censoring all of those?
I guess the trick is that censorship changes/blocks the message of whatever content you are censoring. If you ban a movie in a country, then you can't legally watch that movie. The message cannot be delivered. That is censorship. When you don't play a movie in the the theaters... nothing is stopping that movie from going on youtube or amazon or something. Sure, it won't be as accessible as on the big screen, but no one is stopping your message from spreading.
Now that I think about it, this kind of argument is really really common from liberals. Liberals feel like if you deny easy access to something, it's the equivalent of blocking it entirely. If you don't actively pay for people's abortions and birth control, then there might be some poor people who don't have easy access to those services, which is just as bad as banning them altogether. If you don't have gay adoption agencies in your current city and are forced to move somewhere else to adopt a baby, then that is the same as banning gays from adoption.
I don't understand that line of thinking, since I see the world as a set of tradeoffs that make it impossible to satisfy everyone everywhere all the time, but whatever.
--
_foolmo_
'I love you so much' - SineNomine