Can One Be Open and Honest If Ideas Must First Go Through an Editor?



Philosophical Analysis

In the above video, My Reaction to the Kavanaugh Hearings || Mayim Bialik, Mayim lists various points about the Kavanaugh hearings.  One of the main purposes of this channel seems to be for Mayim to express freely her ideas, thoughts, opinions, etc. to the public.  At 1:49, she posts the heading, My editor made me remove Point #2 - with no further explanation (at the time of this writing). The following philosophical analysis relates to what this statement means within this particular linguistic context (#linguistics, #sociolinguistics).

Having an editor remove "point #2" means that the editor must then approve all other points shared in this video as well as any ideas expressed in all prior videos.  Perhaps Mayim has disclosed who this editor is and their relationship, but it is not clear if one simply refers to this one video. It could also mean that Mayim plans to disclose point #2 at a later date, after the need of having an editor is no longer warranted.  I can't help but wonder now how Mayim's (unedited - original) thoughts get the "green light" before being published for public consumption. It's no one's business why she decided not to reveal point #2 or who the editor happens to be, but it does seem to hamper the level of authenticity that exists with those ideas that are being shared. The appeal of having a channel like this is that there is no editor.

Question: Is it better to reveal that one of several ideas was not allowed to be shared or is it better to just not mention it for fear that it might discredit the other ideas that are being shared?  Can one remain open and honest if ideas first must go through an editor?