But that is not the argument being used to censor people, the platforms are saying you can not disagree with the source, you can not have an opinion contrary to the source, be it WHO, CDC, or FDA

They are appealing to the authority not the data, and in doing so they are proclaiming these organizations are infallible and beyond question which we know is false.

Having looked at the data I made the choice for myself that the vaccine was safe for me to consume, I did not do this because the CDC said so, or because the FDA did. I did not do this because YT put a banner under a video proclaiming the CDC is an infallible god that can never be questioned

Why I'm flummoxed by your argument is that the "infallible God" seems to be the scientific consensus. If anything, the analogy works in the opposite direction. There are many people who choose not to engage with the scientific conversation and instead choose an alternate way of understanding the world, one which is not based on population studies or pharmacology. If there's an example of a respected scientific work that has been censored, then you could change my mind.

One does not have to go far, just look back to the beginning of the pandemic where many people were banned and silenced for pointing out

1. Preliminary research showing masks work contrary to the official positions of CDC and WHO

2. People talking about how masks may not be as effective as original research thought, after the CDC said masks where perfect in every-way and infallible god like barriers preventing all covid. Or talking about how masks may work but masking policies down (the AI could not tell the difference was was shutting down anyone that dared question masks or masking policy)

3. Talking about Lab Leak before it was recognized officially as a possibility by WHO and CDC

4. Any talks about treatments that are not the offical vaccines some of which do have studies showing effectiveness, and I am not talking about the "horse paste" though even banning for that is ridiculous people where banned for talking about mAb treatment before it became blessed by the CDC

5. People that were questioning and talking about actual research that was being done on surface spread, showing it was not as prevalent as "Authoritative sources". People where bleaching their groceries when they got home due to the insanity and if you called that out... BANNED you disagreed with the CDC

I have more than that if you would like? I could probally triple my list of examples

Censorship is always bad not matter what people believe the "greater good" is.

Interesting. I'm not very knowledgeable about that. The people that got banned, were they scientists, or laypeople? And, regardless of whether they turned out to be right, would you characterize their beliefs as science, or speculation?

Regardless about whether or not the censorship was justified, my point is that there is an avenue for legitimate scientific discussion, via open forums, that the anti-vax community largely doesn’t participate with. That’s in part because it is so technical, and the barrier to entry is so high. Maybe there is a larger discussion to be had about how to keep these kinds of organizations accountable, given that their decisions are so complex.