The only thing you said I think is wrong is that de facto censorship always exist.

Censorship is created by a social entity hidding or faking data. Any advanced mind can take these incomplete or faked conclusions and from there find out that the data has been messed with.

Any “trust me bro” arguments can be rejected from the get go. Any information without it’s reproduction steps has no meaning, only an agenda.

People are pretty bright animals on the individual level, but where they fail is that they are social animals which will take cue from other social animals and social entitiesml.

What you see as de facto censorship is only a natural consequence of this mechanism.

But this can be countered with proper education of both the social animals and the social entities.

Fatalism is not needed here because we know that we can build social constructs that can change both how the social animal and the social entity comport themselves.

All in all , a censorship attempt, for a social animal that reject social cues from it’s peers, is at best an attack on it’s agency and intelligence, as worst a proof that the social entity has a hidden agenda and whishes a bad outcome to the censored.

And this attempt will by itself, because the social animal has an advanced mind, create an interest in what the other entity is trying to hide.

We can see this in action with antivaxxer, flat-earthers and so on, in which de facto censorship does not exist.

These examples are not the best, because they also get influenced by bad messaging -a sort of propaganda created by bad actors be it animal or entities - but they examplify the mechanism I am talking about.

Sorry, my English is quite poor this morning as I am very tired from bullshit events in my life.

So if im not very clear, I’m sorry again.