That's pretty blatant censorship!

Here is a confusing take on a Facebook strategy to censor posts.

It's confusing because the article is bashing facebook for not censoring fast enough. It doesn't attempt to discuss the quality of methods of censorship, or what gets censored. It appears that any negative comment about vaccines gets censored by design.

To study ways to reduce vaccine misinformation, Facebook researchers changed how posts are ranked for more than 6,000 users in the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, and the Philippines. Instead of seeing posts about vaccines that were chosen based on their popularity, these users saw posts selected for their trustworthiness.

The results were striking: a nearly 12% decrease in content that made claims debunked by fact-checkers and an 8% increase in content from authoritative public health organizations such as the WHO or U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Those users also had a 7% decrease in negative interactions on the site.

Who is deciding what is misinformation? Who is deciding what is trustworthy? The article partially answers the second question, "...8% increase in content from authoritative public health organizations such as the WHO or U.S. Centers for Disease Control"

But then there's the 'such as' qualifier.

There's more:

Despite this, Facebook employees acknowledged they had “no idea” just how bad anti-vaccine sentiment was in the comments sections on Facebook posts. But company research in February found that as much as 60% of the comments on vaccine posts were anti-vaccine or vaccine reluctant.

“That’s a huge problem and we need to fix it,” the presentation on March 9 read.

Translated as, that's a huge problem and we need to censor comments.