the odds people are [not] talking about something are subject to influence by censorship and political ideology. I disagree with your characterization of it as

the odds people are [not] talking about something are subject to influence by censorship and political ideology. I disagree with your characterization of it as a motte-and-bailey fallacy, because the definition is based on conflating easy/not-easy to defend ideas. You haven't shown that one form of colonization is defensible and the other is not. Rather, you (or the side of that argument you are representing) are attempting to just redefine the word colonization ! I dont know if there's a fallacy name for "redefining words" but there should be.