I don't believe that censorship from a 10,000 foot view is a binary state. You're thinking that I support redaction, I suspect; probably because it's hard to represent my beliefs in a few lines of text.

My view is that attempting to convert facts -- delivered by the scientific method -- to fiction by way of purposeful misinformation is a more corrosive form of censorship than showing the door to a comparatively miniscule number of who-knows-whos seeking to corrupt our agreed upon truths for their own benefit.

> My view is that attempting to convert facts -- delivered by the scientific method -- to fiction by way of purposeful misinformation is a more corrosive form of censorship

Then you simply don't know what the word censorship means.

Disallowing certain information be shared, excepting libel/slander/fraud/privacy invasion/classified data and other private data, is censorship. The onus is on you to prove the non-binary nature of a very ordinary concept.

You happen across a skyscraper with a politically charged message on its façade that you disagree with.

You can either:

A) Paint over it.

B) Surround the entire space around the message with hundreds of other messages -- lies -- in the same style and color, designed to sway people to an opposing ideology.

The same effect has been achieved in both scenarios. Which is more insidious?