But even if it were really "harmful pseudoscience", is that really a reason to ban it?
It is really a reason to decide not to distribute it.
And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content
Anyone who is asked to actively participate in the chain of distribution.
and what happens when they're wrong?
If someone disagrees with their decision not to distribute, they seek some other distribution. Except when it is a decision to distribute and the content is harmful in a way which produces liability, their decision being “wrong” in any authoritative sense isn't really an issue, only disagreement.
Comments
It is really a reason to decide not to distribute it.
Anyone who is asked to actively participate in the chain of distribution.
If someone disagrees with their decision not to distribute, they seek some other distribution. Except when it is a decision to distribute and the content is harmful in a way which produces liability, their decision being “wrong” in any authoritative sense isn't really an issue, only disagreement.