Logically many of your points that use ‘always’ are highly unlikely to be true, because we’d only need find one case to prove the statement false.
"vaccine producers are immune from liability", is not false but is anti-vaccine ... its taken down.
When reports about problems with AstraZeneca were coming out, those were tagged as misinformation, today most countries no longer give out AZ vaccine.
Theyre suppressing truthful info, why should you trust anything they say?
> ... there should be a preference for an alternative to the AstraZeneca [1]
> Canada’s largest province says it will stop giving out first doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine due to concerns over its link to rare blood clots [2]
> More nations halt use of AstraZeneca's COVID vaccine citing clots [3]
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-the-astraz...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canadas-large...
[3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/more-nations-halt-use-o...
False. Here's the note on the image showing vaccine usage:
"Note: The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is known as Covishield in India. Only countries that report doses administered are shown. Other countries may have approved vaccines but have not administered them yet."
To remove false information is not a failure to be candid
We have always removed false information
A private company removing content is not censorship
Public health has always been in favor of removing false information
The perception is being reinforced by false moral equivalences and false claims about the past
There is no downside to removing structured false information being presented by a foreign power
Your hand-wringing doesn't make sense