On Theory And Fact
Glancing through some search engine results, you will find that the idea that conservative right-wing folks being censored is widely touted as being a myth. The screams of "there is no evidence" are represented disproportionately to links that say there is a problem.
I am going to advance a theory here as someone who was branded as right-wing because they refused to have their business attend a Pride event and was subsequently attacked on social media and elsewhere for it. Here is the theory. At the top of that pile of denial are liars--the same kind of liars that rub shoulders with Fauci. These are despicable, unrepentant human beings that should be removed from society if for no other reason than to protect it from people like them.
The next class of people are the ones I am more interested in. These people are the subsection who desperately WANT what is being said to be false so they can go on living their lives as they have. This group is less evil than the first category although to allow your emotions to make decisions that will not enable you to take in actual stories from people who have endured the type of censorship being discussed is, at best immature, and at worst, starts to approach the Fauci level of willful manipulation.
Conversation always breaks down at the eyewitness level. You can talk all day about what you think happened on 9-11, but then, you have to listen to the people who were actually there since they were on the ground in the middle of the event. Speculation does not trump actual experience of an event, and avoiding the people who have undergone and survived these types of ordeals does not inoculate you to the truth and validity of the points being made. It just makes you dishonest, first with yourself, then everyone else.
People often try to argue with me on issues where the data is clear. When I have firsthand validation or knowledge of a subject, I have found that people still will not listen and stick to their own opinion despite their having any actual evidence at all. The response then is since I cannot be moved, I have to be either blocked or labeled a derogatory name so I can be ignored and filed in the mental dustbin of "just saying party line talking points".
The biggest example of all this might have been the Charlie Kirk assassination. People treat it like it was some minor road-bump. The guy was literally talking with people in an open forum format one minute, and the next he was being slain by someone dating a person who thought they were some other gender than they were. The fallout over that issue and how people responded tells you much for where the appreciation of truth dwells. If someone decides to shoot somebody else because they disagree with them, we have reached a level of interaction that not even the Old West could countenance. Heck, every Western starts out often with somebody being killed that should not have been, and then the rest of the movie deals with what happens afterwards.
These echo chambers of lies, sooner or later, have to stop.