> The implications of superdeterminism, if it is true, would bring into question the value of science itself by destroying falsifiability, as Anton Zeilinger has commented

Except Zeilinger is wrong. The freedom of the experimenter is not fundamental to the scientific process, rather the nature of the experimenter's complexity is what matters. Even simple deterministic algorithms can explore an entire state space, and given we are capable of simulating such algorithms with our brains (Turing completeness), we are therefore also capable of exploring the full state space of physical theories.

Furthermore, it is not a false picture of nature at all. It very clearly describes the behaviour of that which is observable, which is exactly what science is designed to do.

A simple description of superdeterminism would be that it's a theory of hidden variables where those hidden variables evolve with intelligence level complexity. It's a traditional method to evade falsifiability, yes :)

These criticism sound quite convoluted and hyperbolic when its really just saying some kind of intrinsic selection bias is a possible explanation.