The OP paints censorship as an exclusively protective measure. They don't consider that the similarities to being the ministry of truth.

Meanwhile the fact checkers use technicalities of English to sway whatever they're checking. Someone did something but the statement said they took 4 steps instead of 3 before killing someone? Let's make that "mostly false" and just state with no actual evidence that due to the discrepancy of steps the "statement" is false. It's completely intellectually dishonest.

It's an entirely abusive and subversive system that has absolutely zero oversight. Nevermind twitter and Facebook use these groups as an appeal of authority when there is absolutely no authority to be found. They use the names and their authority to state "this is the truth, no questions allowed". Meanwhile they have been wrong and recently have been sued over it and lost. What this means is that none of them can be implicitly trusted to always be the truth or even factual. So why bother pushing them? They're great for pushing a narrative of reality you want to force. It coerces conversation both in topic and candor to follow exactly what the fact checker wants the reality to be despite not being an actual authority in anything.

How this isn't a bigger issue I'll never know. We'll be getting to the point where Google only lets you search approved topics and removes entries which could be "dangerous" based on some arbitrary 3rd party moral authority you never chose. You can't can't tweet information that hasn't been preverified on twitter or Facebook. It's only a matter of time before Google rolls out fact checking for their messaging app or spam filters which leverage the censorship. Then what happens to free speech?