It is less a question of censorship and more a question of removing egregiously bad "news" that is explicitly written to collect views. If you believe flagging

It is less a question of censorship and more a question of removing egregiously bad "news" that is explicitly written to collect views. If you believe flagging false headlines like “Michelle Obama DEMANDS Americans PAY UP To Give Her Mom A Cushy $160k Pension” is fascism, and that advocating war-crimes and bringing back libel laws like Trump did is not, I don't know what to say. There is a whole industry set up to profit from making fake news that they know is false: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-macedonias-fake-news-hub-teen-shows-ap-how-its-done/2016/12/02/98bce38e-b88d-11e6-939c-91749443c5e5_story.html?utm_term=.f80a4c745b5a https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-macedonias-fa... If you think any attempt to reduce profiteering by knowingly generating fake news that gets millions of shares is fascism, I'm not sure what isn't. I'm not sure if there has been any 'transition' from accusations of racism to fake news. The "birther" controversy, especially the way it treated by places like Brietbart was both racist and fake, I doubt that you dispute that. Trump retweeting Stormfront infographics that claim ridiculous stuff like 90% of white murder victims were killed by black people is both racist and fake. This is hardly a "liberal" or globalist position, even Fox news called out Trump on that. Regardless of political orientation, objective facts do exist. I don't believe in censorship, but I think if a site wants to flag a post saying "reasons why the moon landing is a globalist conspiracy" as false, I'm not going to cry that it's literally fascism.