I think there is a big difference between content moderation (based on published and reasonably objective rules) and an outright ban on contradicting the stance

I think there is a big difference between content moderation (based on published and reasonably objective rules) and an outright ban on contradicting the stance of an organisation that is highly political. If this rule was implemented earlier, you’d be banned for saying there is human-to-human transmission, proposing flight restrictions, or advocating for the general public to use masks. The W.H.O. has explicitly advised against each of those measures, despite significant disagreement on every one of those claims. It’s absurd that dissenting against the W.H.O. has been banned, although it’s predictable of course.