Yes? Please elaborate
If she had it so that posts were censored on her social media pages then ALL criticism of her/her opinions would be blocked.
They wouldn't just be blocked from her view, they would be blocked from the view of EVERYBODY who visits her social media page.
Meaning you would never find any criticism, or arguments (valid or not) on her page.
Which leaves the page massively biased. It gives the impression that everything she says is correct and entirely unchallenged.
And anyone who does wish to challenge her, can't challenge her on her social media pages.
So, all the uninformed masses who might go to her social media pages will never witness a challenge to her views, and won't second-guess her.
While it is just opinion she and others bring up, imagine if it was the same as scientific peer-review.
You set out the means that once you've submitted a scientific article to a journal, NO ONE can then challenge it in a later copy of that journal.
It wouldn't do that a scientific finding went unchallenged, and everyone was led to believe it was true, and there wasn't an equal medium whereby other scientists can challenge or confirm those findings. You could have people accepting scientific findings that aren't true, or have flaws in them.
In the same way, on social media, the biggest medium for sharing opinions, if she simply blacklists all forms of criticism and challenge, you'll have people accepting and agreeing with opinions that are flawed or don't make sense.
