When someone today talks about "decolonization", what are the odds that they're talking about Palestine? What are the odds that they're talking about the Belgian Congo? This is especially true if it shows up on Twitter rather than in an obscure journal about the 20th century history of Africa.
So (many) people are using "decolonization" to mean the destruction of Israel. And then (some, and maybe not the same) people are saying "you can't say decolonization means genocide, because there's all this history of Africa and India and the Caribbean and so on - it doesn't necessarily mean that." OK, fine, but these days, on Twitter, what percentage of it does mean wiping out Israel? 95%? 99%?
So, yes, as a matter of definition, you have a point. In practice, Twitter has a point.
In my particular bubble? Essentially zero. It's pretty much always going to be in the context of a past or present British colony, or a person's mental state aka "decolonize the mind". I readily admit my personal experience may not line up with whatever is trending on Twitter/X. And now we can't discuss those things on Twitter/X apparently. Is Twitter/X such a mess that this kind of limit is for the best? Maybe, I haven't been around in a long time, but it seems pretty damn toxic from the outside, but "freedom of speech" it ain't.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decolonization
It may surprise you to know, there is more to the world than one particular conflict.
Edit: to be clear I take no issue with banning calls for violence and genocide, including instances where they are attempting to be obscured by careful use of language. I take issue with claiming that the word, which has been used for decades, in a wide variety of contexts, suddenly inherently means genocide.