I broadly agree, but I think it's not exactly the problem here. In this case, one "side" would be a government (assuming this was done at govt request), which

I broadly agree, but I think it's not exactly the problem here. In this case, one "side" would be a government (assuming this was done at govt request), which means it is literally censorship to silence the other side -- regardless of where the truth lies. If FB did it proactively to appease a govt (which they did/do in the US), then it's a lot murkier of an issue. It's almost like "soft" censorship.