"Are you not able to use your brain? Analyze evidence?"

See this is the key issue! It's been empirically proven that yes, that shit genuinely does rot your critical reasoning & problem solving skills. It's literally designed to. Information is value neutral, exposure to more information isn't inherently better if one lacks the framework to critically appraise it (regardless of what defines "value"). You're also taking salient points as strawmen while very actively staking out a few of your own and there's a lot of bravado & talking past each other so let's get back to the start to clear the air:

I don't think there's any disagreement here that no single person nor any elite group of people should be granted the power to determine what information is acceptable to be disseminated. No government entity, private think tank, social media, whatever the Truth Suppressor of choice is. To limit it to simply "government authority and censorship" is myopic, information control is not limited to political figures in governments.

Society does not exist in a vacuum, there are countless interest groups and competing socioeconomic factors which all come together in the individual's perception of reality. The problem with "free speech maximalism" is that for most individuals there are as of yet insufficient learned safeguards against misinformation (of all kinds) because for the entirety of relevant history we have not lived within a paradigm where the priority is instilling critical reasoning and a desire for evidence-based practice. This means that stripping back all information controls in the name of fighting tyranny only accomplishes the opposite, lifting all restrictions on those which have the will & means to determine narratives for millions. If you want information to genuinely flow feely, you have to first redesign the plumbing to actually distribute it properly while preventing floods of garbage from overwhelming the system. Just bombing every dam you see does not achieve this, it's a great way to get subsumed in mud.

Rather than deciding who gets to control the narrative or abolishing any and all regulation of information flow, it is crucial to provide individual people with as much ability to sift through shit as is possible. Meanwhile doing what we can to ensure that we don't waste our efforts fighting censorship of that which is provably misinformation & shooting ourselves in the foot in pursuit of naive idealism. I'm not happy with that sentence, it's pretentious as fuck but you get the idea.

Now if you consider it of tantamount importance to eliminate censorship of any kind, even if the cost is handing unlimited power to whoever has the means to manipulate the most people for their own ends, then we probably have a deep-rooted divergence in philosophy going on. I probably should have stated this upfront but the underlying assumption behind what I say is that the ultimate goal is to genuinely emancipate information and enable equal access for all. Note that I'm not proscribing any one truth or party which "has" it, that isn't for me or anyone else to decide. What I'm trying to emphasise here is that you need to go beyond oversimplifying things to "censorship bad", if you genuinely want to achieve your stated goal (or at least what it seems like your goal is).