Enforcing standards of scientific integrity is not censorship insofar as the rejection of a submission is based upon its failure to meet those standards and not

Enforcing standards of scientific integrity is not censorship insofar as the rejection of a submission is based upon its failure to meet those standards and not because it contains an unpalatable but well-founded assertion. Accordingly, it's not a "lose" for anyone involved in the publication, including Thiel, to support the rejection of junk or pseudo science. When you say "once the nutters get together and make a bad decision," you're treating it as if it was a single thing or collection of things that happened at a single point in time, but that's not the case here. It's an ongoing thing, which naturally raises the prospect of a pattern. Taken together with what appears to be solicitation of submissions from people known to traffic in junk and pseudo science, I think it would be naive to not suspect an agenda on someone's part.