The standard "they're a private company/Android is an alternative" reply to this argument remains shortsighted. I'm an actor in the economy as well, and and I can apply non-monetary pressure (like editorials) just as well as Apple can (like advertising) to try to get a product that I want and a policy that I want in the same place. "Accepting it" leads to non-optimal solutions. We can disagree on what is optimal, of course.
However, the argument in this article is weak. It's not an argument to stop censoring apps, it's just saying, "continue blocking speech, except when its speech that I like". The author seems perfectly OK with some of Apple's other fairly arbitrary standards because the experience is OK so far.
All curation is "censoring". Being absolutist here isn't that insightful -- obviously there are degrees of censorship and a significant difference between "censoring" political apps and "censoring" malware -- but it is an important point to keep in mind.
Personally, I believe the answer is to allow side loading, trading a bit of pain (especially for security reasons) to allow determination on your own of what is acceptable to run on your device beyond the curated apps. At that point, the curated app store as a good thing becomes a much stronger argument for me, because everything that particular curator disagrees with is still available somewhere, even if it turns out I almost always agree with the curator.
At least (AFAIK) Apple has been less hard on the jailbreakers in the last few years.