Yes, it was always like this until only a few years ago. The medium of communication was print and then radio and television. The largest private entities in these mediums did not have an allocated hour or page for hate preachers to proselytize to their large audience. The largest private distribution channels of print media did not allow any such material, either. For the most part, they moderated their private platforms by banning those content creators. Well, large private Rwandan radio channels didn't self-moderate, but that's an exception that proves how important what I'm talking about is.

You're conflating the medium (the internet, print media) for the private actors within the medium (Tik Tok, NYT, bookstores). Hate preachers will still be free to create their own little hate websites, newspapers and radio channels as they always have.

None of this is a violation of free speech, and to say otherwise is a modern politicized bastardization of the American sociolegal concept of free speech. The concept was never about an implied right to unlimited discoverability and for private shop owners to carry a hateful newspaper or TikTok to carry a hateful channel. Private storefronts have, for the most part, rightfully rejected to assist in the distribution of harmful material. This worked as a nice balance that attenuated the worst aspects of speech (e.g. the hateful content that incited the Rwandan genocide) via self-regulation, which allowed the government to stay far away.