Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see you've rediscovered the publisher vs. platform dichotomy! Those of us who believe in free speech understand that people will say things we don't like, and further understand that the sacrifice of ignoring content we dislike is worth it for the greater principle. I know this is difficult when people are saying things you believe to be untrue, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative that doesn't resul…
Free speech absolutism is destructive. Facebook is an example of this. Climate change denialism is another. Holocaust denial is another.
OK, cool. So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? What do the parameters look like? What level of "consensus" gets to establish facts? What happens if there's consensus and someone discovers some new compelling counter-argument or evidence to the contrary for something?
You'll find that even in places like Canada where there are hate speech laws, the restrictions are limited to speech that poses a credible threat or incitement to violence, in context. None of the things you've mentioned are illegal to talk about, just like flat eartherism or any other pseudoscientific concept.
Again, you can find it as distasteful as you like; but there's a clean and simple solution to the problem, which is a button with an X on it, at the top of your window. Consider clicking it?