The censor is the owner of the platform broadcasting the content. If I didn't like your censorship practices then I wouldn't use your platform.

Just to be clear, are you advocating for censorship on a platform (i.e. Facebook) level, or a governmental level as well?

I am not "advocating for censorship", I am "advocating" for the freedom to determine what content is hosted on a computer you own.

A computer owned by the government is a different story since government property is paid for by the tax-payer, so it should not be able to act unilaterally in matters of removing content.

And, out of curiosity, what would you say if someone made an argument that company X, while not owned by the government, is effectively a monopoly due in significant part to government intervention? Mechanisms for this might be: patent grants, regulations that create significant barriers to entry for new competitors, lucrative contracts with a federal department, inconsistent enforcement of existing laws while the incumbent has protective connections with the enforcers, tariffs...

Your hypothetical is too vague for me to answer. If you have a specific example I'd be happy to elucidate further.

I'll add that I don't regard patents, regulation, or "inconsistent enforcement of existing laws" as a reason why a company or individual should forfeit the freedom to determine what they host on a computer they own.