Things have pros and cons, and when the cons outweigh the pros perhaps action must be taken. But in this case, the people spreading the disinformation are to blame.
Seriously, they will punish an account for a nipple and do it even faster for frontal nudity, and it doesn't matter how tasteful the art is. They refuse adverts if they show "too much skin" (uncovered shoulders hinting at possible nudity). I'm pretty sure they can take these sorts of posts and pages down - or at least work towards taking them down.
Instead we elect people who demean the very scientists working hard to protect our society.
This doesn't excuse facebook, however. This isn't just their ad business I'm speaking of - I was merely pointing out that suggestive paintings are too much. Pointing out they punish artists that paint tasteful nudes. Historical photos are a grey area, and it has taken heads of states speaking out for those to be reinstated.
These are merely normal people's posts.
Yet allowing posts that harm others and entire groups that do the same? Yup, allowed. Because they choose to allow such posts, they share responsibility. They choose to turn a blind eye to anti-vax groups and the like.
As far as photos are concerned, age and "famous" do, indeed, matter. The "napalm girl" picture was banned for nudity - even when a head of state sent it out. Facebook said it would allow "historically important" works, but it still lies in a grey area. I highly doubt a new work of equal cultural importance could be posted today.