My impression was the opposite. Greenwald went around slinging wild accusations of censorship and bias, and the Intercept's response was fairly measured in comparison. They even included an acknowledgement of respect for his work.
I thought his point by point rebuttal was pretty effective - he basically said "if you think my allegations aren't tempered enough, then suggest how to temper them further, don't just remove them entirely".
Again, it's the two-faced approach the media is taking. Rumor about Trump gets front page coverage, then someone asks about sources and you realize there are none. Try the same with Biden and you get "there is no story here. all disinformation".
Why two standards for two different leaders?
"It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere."
To me this is clearly saying: "that would suck but we can't stop you". Otherwise they would have told him not to publish it instead of just describing the ramifications of him doing it.
I'm not really interested in litigating who has the "correct" opinion or version of events, but I'm skeptical that the editors' stance of "If you'd like to publish this as is, we'd prefer that you use your other enormous and wide-reaching platform(s) rather than the one tied to our professional reputations" counts as true censorship. Millions of people read his story today.
Way to weasel out of that question.
"Glenn was censored from publishing in his own publication!"
"No he wasn't he tweeted it later."
That's a non-answer.
Edit: >"Glenn was censored from publishing in his own publication!"
This is neither a question or a quote from what I said.