Seriously, though. People need to realize how stupid it is to say "oh, the constitution clearly prohibits X" with a citation to nothing unless you've said something like "warrants must be supported by probable cause".
Your personal feelings about what a provision mean nothing. The only thing that means anything is what courts have said and a prediction - itself based on reading the bodies of law that are relevant - on where they're likely to go.
I understand caring about result. I do not understand "my ignorance is better than anyone's knowledge, experience, and judgment".
You said "Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech."
One of the questions that must be answered is whether or not Facebook is considered a "state actor" under controlling precedent. SCOTUS, if you want to be as sure as you can be. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that exact question, so analysis requires analysis of decisions about state actor in general, SCOTUS cases obviously being the most important. Nationwide, you'd need a SCOTUS ruling. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that SCOTUS should adopt the reasoning of other decisions, be they by federal circuit courts, federal district courts, various state courts interpreting state constitutional provisions or applying federal ones. Etc.
Law takes time. Especially appeals. Especially "this thing right here is unconstitutional!"