This is only true in the US; in the rest of the world the population of those with various religious beliefs is growing rapidly:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-201...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/why-muslims-...

there's always been bad information but it was previously hard to disseminate NEW bad information quickly. It was incredibly expensive, slow and there were watchers, gatekeepers ... various religious authorities, newspaper editors etc. now the russian election manipulation cyber warfare division or your local anti-vax grifter can anonymously target a limitless number of impressionable rubes with the click of a mouse. often for free if the content's viral. thanks social media!

But is it an authoritarian solution? Does that terminology make sense outside of the sociopolitical context of government action? I feel it really diminishes the meaning of the word, "authoritarian" when you throw it around to describe the rights reserved by a non-government entity to police its own platform.

A private company has a platform, and they can choose what content to allow on the platform. If you don't like it then enjoy your content elsewhere.

If anything, it sounds like a bit of a made up problem to declare Amazon (or another similarly sized tech company) is being authoritarian by removing anti-vaccination videos. I mean come on, we have a rich history of authoritarian governments murdering people for vocal dissent. I get that you disagree with private censorship, but let's have some perspective now...