Let's see some statistical analysis that the fact checkers FB claims are disinterested arbiters of fact aren't in fact pushing an agenda before we go along with censorship maybe.
I'm not willing to call it censorship, and you still haven't provided evidence for your claim that two routinely considered reputable fact checkers aren't.
My argument is very simple but you apparently misunderstand.
morgante guessed that I reject fact checking simply if it doesn't confirm my worldview.
I rebutted that the fact checkers in question aren't simply disproving my worldview. Rather they are advancing an opinion-based counter-narrative under the guise of objectivity.
You replied and suggested that I should be held to the same standard as a purported arbiter of truth.
I rebutted that I do not claim to be a sterile, objective source of bald fact-checking. And a major news consumption platform is not appending my opinions to people's feeds and elevating my opinions to objective status. My opinions-masquerading-as-fact won't be advanced by Facebook as evidence of the disreputability of those I disagree with.