Double standards aren’t a bug of censorship; they’re its main feature.
Censorship is often framed as controlling information, as if the goal were to “clean up” the public sphere. That’s a pretext. The real essence of censorship is the control of groups, usually of political adversaries.
That’s why every censorship regime operates with double standards. One group retains broad freedom of speech, while the other is punished for comparable, or even milder, expression. This asymmetry/inequality/two-tier censorship isn’t accidental; it’s the point.
If censorship were to be implemented with genuine viewpoint neutrality, the censors wouldn’t even support it. Neutral rules would constrain everyone equally, including those pushing for them, so it would defeat the purpose for them.
In practice, this means that certain opinions, sometimes even moderate ones, are labeled as “hate,” “disinformation,” or “threats to democracy,” if it comes from the groups targeted by the censors.
Meanwhile, similar or more extreme rhetoric from favored/protected groups is reframed as justified, compassionate, or necessary, and therefore permitted.
Censorship isn't really about regulating speech. Censorship is about controlling (and weakening) adversaries, so as to advance the worldview of the censors.