You're being disingenuous and trying to create a false equivalence with your use of the term "platform." The CDC is not a platform, and this kind of censorship is not equivalent to social media being allowed to "censor" content through moderation.
I humbly disagree with both your accusations that it is disingenuous, or that CDC is not used as a platform for publishing papers. CDC call the CDC library as a publishing environment where parties submitt papers and documents for publication.
The CDC is not a platform in the sense that "platform" is commonly understood when discussing social media, meaning a privately controlled entity.
The simple fact that the CDC publishes papers does not make the two equivalent, because the rights that private citizens have relative to the First Amendment differ versus the government. What Trump and his administration are doing is a violation of the First Amendment. What social media platforms do when they ban or moderate content is an expression of the First Amendment.
As the counter argument goes, the first amendment does not grant the right of amplified speech. If the government act as a publisher, with discretion to choose which information they choose to publish, then there is no conflict. Feel free to provide examples of first amendment being used to compell the government to publish someone else book or study.
I would like to reassert that censorship is harmful regardless which side does it, especially when the purpose is to silence opposing political views. The filtering should occur at the end points and in control of the user, not governments or companies.
It wasn’t but a few months ago when certain words and topics not in favor with the ruling administration wouldn’t be published. Now the pendulum has swung, and it’s suddenly a freedom of speech concern. Maybe even the end of democracy.
