Is the comparison with pandemic-era moderation fair?

The comparison can be a starting point, but it needs specifics. Which platform rule, what content was affected, and how were decisions made? Without those details, a broad claim of identical treatment is hard to assess.

There’s also a difference between restricting a topic and moderating particular posts, such as content judged to be misleading or harmful. Whether a rule was fair depends on how clearly it was explained and applied.

People can support limits for different reasons, including concern about harassment, false claims, or content that could lead to harm. That doesn’t mean every restriction is justified, and it doesn’t establish that influencers as a group want discussion shut down.

I’d look for the specific proposal and the reasons given before guessing at anyone’s motive.

For me, the useful comparison is about process, not whether two moments were exactly alike. Were the rules public? Could people appeal a decision? Did the platform explain what counted as a violation, and did it apply the rule consistently?

Those questions make it easier to criticize overreach without treating all moderation as censorship, or assuming that a sensitive subject should be off limits.