It would be terrible if this was actually censorship, but its not, its restricting access to an exclusive and commercial forum with a policy you agree to if you use it. No one is preventing people from talking about this, and its not like there isnt a great many alternative forums to do so.
Why they did so is completely beyond me however...
It doesn't matter if it "actually censorship". Why people always argue about definitions and stuff while the real effect it has is obvious and its completely irrelevant if it ticks all the boxes for the definition of "censorship". People use the word because there simply inst a better one. Maybe its just suppressing or consensual temporary censoring who tf cares. Its not about definitions or whether a law was broken its just about the effect it has.
No, there are just different definitions for a word and context, everyone know exactly what is meant in this case.
It doesn't matter if it is limited to a specific platform or consensual. China also censors what people can read only on their internet. But its still "actual censorship" even if you can just go to another place.
This is exactly the kind of useless arguing about definition. It doesn't matter if the word is used wrong, if it is used for a lack of a better one. You can disagree with that but unless you come up with a better one you aint contributing anything. You just deflect the discussion away form the actual topic/problem. Its about the (negative) effect the [insert "your better word for consensual censorship form a private company that has no obligation to reason their action" here] has on the people of this planet. It looks to me like you dont see a problem so you question the word used to express it instead.
Seems to me the term, restriction of speech or moderation work quite fine for what you're describing. Censorship should be restricted to the use of those situations where the speakers have no recourse, such in the case of government Censorship.
Why they did so is completely beyond me however...