You can, but if you actually start from those recordings and then delete them and claim that it's too dangerous to publish actual evidence that somebody said X when journalists keep claiming that they said X, that's a little suspicious.

That doesn’t make sense in this scenario. The person making the posts that Facebook takes down isn’t trying to hide that they said those things — they want that message conveyed. Why would they deny it when asked?

Also, it’s trivial to take screenshots or otherwise archive the page even if Facebook takes it down.

False. In any scenario where a censor can claim Person A is saying X while also censoring Person A, anything Person A says that conflicts with the censors’ narrative will itself be censored.

But all narratives would be consistent. This is the scenario we're talking about:

1. Person A says X on Facebook.

2. Facebook removes Person A's post.

3. Journalist reports that Person A said X and that Facebook removed it.

Why would Person A suddenly disclaim X? They want X to be heard, which is why they said it on Facebook in the first place.

And again, there are ways to archive digital content even if its original source has been taken down.

> 3. Journalist reports that Person A said X and that Facebook removed it.

Alternative: Journalist claims that Person A said Y and that Facebook removed it. Person A is unable to disclaim it because every time they repeat X it gets taken down and misreported as Y. The public are none the wiser.