I would make the claim to be constantly evaluating the validity of statements I have not heard, and may never hear. This may sound like nonsense, but the flip-side of censorship is not excess of information but curation. If my news sources are trustworthy, then they are filtering useless information for me, while hopefully not belying my trust by censoring important information.
To the other poster, my argument was supposed to be obvious: it was intended to be a simplified example to elucidate concerns by comparison.
It is not about the validity, it is that you can not even evaluate that which you have not heard.
The level of censorship varies greatly by media and platform.