I fail to see how this could be called anything else without resorting to newspeak. It's politically motivated downranking of sources that the operators of DDG are in ideological disagreement with. It's a way of exerting narrative control over public perceptions.

Downranking sites that disrespect user privacy using trackers and similar is different, because it is not ideologically motivated. I guess you could call it censorship, but no-one except the site owners are going to take issue with it.

A simple way to tell if something is political censorship is to ask: who will take issue with the absence of this piece of information that is being removed or hidden? If the answer contains groups of people that aren't just corporations, I think it's pretty clear what is going on.

And I guess I have to repeat myself here: no, I don't personally belong to such a group in this context. I just happen to not want anyone telling me what I'm supposed to believe, even if I'm "on their side".