But the whole argument requires picking and choosing your stance, so you're choosing to base it off an average family or four in the US as opposed to a generic "hunter-gatherer of North America," apparently from the north/northwestern region. There were periods long before they could hunt large game, and there are groups today, such as the Inuit, that have extremely limited traditional diets in regard to biodiversity if you don't include the influx of modern foods.

I'm just taking exception to the often-stated but not well-defined stance that hunter-gatherers of specific yet undetermined locations and time periods had such impressively diverse diets compared to modern times.

Yeah, and that's what people are choosing to eat. Maybe it's where I live in the PNW and in a foodie area, but monthly I eat elk or bison, and at least a half dozen types fish and seafood, that's without getting into all the imported foods ands flavors from other countries. My point is that people have access to a more diverse amount of food than ever before in history, they just choose not to eat it.

People say this all the time, but I just don't see how it's true with our unparalleled access to food and spices from around the globe, or maybe you/they don't eat a very varied diet?

So you're saying Tarantino should have made The Bear Jew be Jack Kirby?

No, but everything you listed is purely anecdotal unless there's some kind of real evidence to support the claims. A random mother who breastfed and never used formula claiming that 'breast is best' is absolutely meaningless. How would she know breast is best, and by what criteria is she making such a claim? Hell, how does she know her kid wouldn't be better off if they had some formula mixed in? It's not censorship, it's keeping opinions as opinions and not facts. This applies to every example you listed.