Humans have invented a reliable way of adjudicating truth. It's called the scientific method, a closely related cousin of which is professional journalism. There's a reason that it takes years to develop the expertise to be a scientist or a journalist. It's hard work. But it is the only defense against demagoguery.

So yes, I would feel a lot better about it if the decisions were being made by someone -- or, even better, a group of people -- who were committed to a process of adjudicating truth on the basis of evidence rather than ideology. And yes, I tend to agree with such people because I personally try to hew to evidence over ideology. One of the benefits of adjudicating truth on the basis of evidence rather than ideology is that it tends to converge, and so it tends result in people who adhere to this process agreeing with each other. Superficially this looks a lot like agreement based on ideology, but there is one big difference, and that is that dissent is actually welcome -- if you can back it up with evidence. In science, progress is possible. In a system that bases truth on ideology, particularly one whose ideology is rooted in an individual (i.e. a personality cult), it isn't. That's what scares me.

This degree of power, practical editorial and censorship power, should probably not be held by a single person or corporation.