Censorship is a bad thing, editing is a good thing. Both involve removing material judged unworthy from view.
In our well justified zeal against censorship, we've gotten a little weird about editing. Movies are re-released advertizing previously cut footage. Now, I've done some film and video editing in my day, and footage is generaly cut because it would detract from the final product. Most of what ends up on the floor belongs there, either because it is just plain not good, or because it would disrupt the flow. Yeah, sometimes footage is cut that shouldn't be, but in general cutting is a good thing.
The old Andrew Dice Clay controversy struck me as odd, too. There were claims that he was being censored for being politicaly incorrect, but I think most of his problem was that his comedy tended not to be funny.
Anyway, for me the difference is that censorship cuts in order to prevent an idea from being expressed or an image seen, while editing cuts because a particular expression (not the idea) is unworthy or inapropriate to the final product. Censorship says "this idea (or image) is bad". Editing says "this presentation is not good enough". Where it gets complicated is when "good enough" includes requiring particular ideas.
The distinction is not one that is easy to encode. Some systems might be more conducive to censorship or editing than others, but in the end, it really comes down to people acting in good faith.
Are we voting down pro-MS stories because they are pro-MS, or because they don't contain information that interests us? Hard to tell. Quite a few pro-MS stories are just plain bad. Many are short on technical content, which isn't surprising given that Microsoft aims its products at a less technical audience. Microsoft has also muddied the waters considerably in the past by the use of astroturf campaigns and deliberate disruption of forums.
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase