Before the printing press most people couldn't mass produce their written word. The printing press was a megaphone and a platform. Is taking away someone's access to a printing press censorship?

Not too many years ago no one had the ability to call anyone with a telephone. That service is provided by private companies in many countries. Is denying someone the ability to call their associates censorship?

Times change.

But is taking away the megaphone the same as silencing them? When everyone has a megaphone, those who don't are not heard.

If you’re in a park where everyone else is shouting through a megaphone, and you don’t have a megaphone, your voice will not be heard.

> then by that definition the whole world was censored 2 decades ago.

Nope, you are misunderstanding something here. Removing what was considered "given" is what becomes perceived as censorship.

It doesn't really matter that much if you want to use the word "banned" in preference to "censored"; the facts of the matter is that the entire right wing's viewpoint is under threat on these channels to the point where people have been decamping and moving on to other platforms in large numbers. There have been quite a few notable social media plays (thinking Gab, Parler & Truth Social) that may as well have started in response to the 2016 election.

So we don't have to use the word censorship but there is a lot of voting with feet going on that suggests some sort of speech suppression. The persistent banning of private opinions by American big tech is probably the major cause of that.