Some time up until people started getting the internet on their phones, roughly. Of course, no definition is perfect.
Public and media speech was always moderated. In the past it was simply harder to notice since there were fewer un-moderated channels.
Beyond the hardened strawmen of actual written law, we have a shifting sense of what is publicly acceptable. Given that most people do what everyone else around them is doing, or at least what they believe others are doing, there exists a powerful tool in that to control the public discourse. We've gone from "I disagree with what you say, but I will die to protect your ability to say it," to "I think someone will find this offensive, so I will also find this offensive, despite my not knowing anyone who'd actually be offended by it."
The laws are a harder target, so those who would wish to stifle inconvenient discourse likely would find it easier to convince a mostly pliable, trusting public to not say the things they don't want said. That there still are a small number of companies controlling what a majority of people consume might be convenient to this.
All conjecture, of course. More of the Paul Harvey "If I Were The Devil" kind of thing.
Can you help make sense of your comment, because it seems to be closer to a cult chant than a connected chain of thoughts.
However, if you admit this, then you must also admit that Twitch is fully within their rights.
Personally, I believe that the positive right to free speech (subject to exceptions, of course) is much more important, and not up to FAANG to decide.