Using your limited and valuable vote power to flag because you believe the rewards are excessive is part of the design (white paper, etc.).
Earning less rewards is not really censorship though, it is just that people wanting to post and earn higher rewards need to find a way of presenting things that attracts wider support or at least indifference (including from people such as @ned).
The 'censorship' aspect that I personally find troublesome is the hiding of flagged content that can occur without any input from the reader about what they would like hidden. If someone wants to enable a filter that hides all posts that are flagged or all posts that have rewards of less than $100, all posts from people with rep below 50, etc. that is their prerogative, but I don't believe that the platform should take it upon itself to do this for all users.
In time I do think we will see multiple competing sites all working off the same blockchain so people will have the ability to choose a site with some preferred amount of filtering (or none). Understeem [Tor link] already exists with some filters removed.
I see it as censorship in that @masteryoda will no longer be posting stats because @ned did not like what hundreds of members of the community valued them at. I actually am ok with it if it were a non-founder whale doing the de-valuation (they earned that right as a private investor, it's nobody's business what they do generally speaking), but this user's posts are highly valued by many in the community, and have effectively been silenced by founder @ned because they are no longer a source of income making it feasible for them to take the time to produce these stats. A founder going against the grain on a particular user, wiping out hundreds of community votes seems a bit concerning to me.