No it isn't. Those conditions are made up, and seem retroactively concocted to label getting banned from twitter as "censorship."
And if it is, all you've done is make "censorship" look appealing and reasonable, which I doubt is what you were going for.
But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation. The fact that we’ve appropriated the term to mean censorship doesn’t mean that the definitions actually change.
Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.
> Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.
You're contradicting yourself. What if someone wants to disrupt the conversation? Depending on the audience and venue, disruption can take many forms.
So a moderator moderates, and extreme cases of moderation may censor. But there is still a distinction between censorship and moderation even if there are situations where one involves the other.
If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship.
It might be justifiable, it might not be, but it’s definitely within the definition of censorship and if you can’t start there, you’re arguing in bad faith to avoid uncomfortable connotations.