I don't understand what you mean, that's not censorship. To use an analogy, when you tell everyone you don't like Star Wars, your friends will likely decide to

I don't understand what you mean, that's not censorship. To use an analogy, when you tell everyone you don't like Star Wars, your friends will likely decide to only talk to you about Westworld and not talk to you about what happens in The Mandalorian. Censorship would be if someone was actively trying to stop everyone from talking about Star Wars, which is not what is happening. I would advise against using that word without clear proof of it, as it's misused quite often. Also I don't understand why you were previously encouraging spam filtering but now seem to be against any kind of filtering? >trying to decide what's true for any possible statement Any possible statement that happens on their platform, yes. That's generally how it works when you have a company and I don't see how Facebook is doing anything out of the ordinary here -- any company can fire employees/customers for lying. If they know there are lies being posted on their site, it's perfectly reasonable to delete them. In fact I wish they would take more effort to delete more lies and falsehoods, the website is unusable when everybody is caught up in discussing a lie and doesn't want to hear the truth. >To try and decide what's true for the entire space of arbitrary questions about politics or science is thus arrogance on a galactic scale. I really can't agree. In general, we know what's true for politics: it's what the elections and the courts decide, at least in the US anyway. By design those are the authoritative sources. There is no authoritative source for science but with that you can verify the accuracy of any statement by testing it yourself and reproducing (or not reproducing) the results, that's the whole point. I don't see why it would be arrogant of a company to do this, as it's what a company is supposed to be doing in order for the system to work.