Complex Question, and Loaded question.

I will give you an example to make it more clear. 

Americans Front Line Doctors put out misinformation about covid-19 that got shared on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. So, according to the social medias policy they deleted them as dangerous fake news. 

When discussing this, someone comments the following statement/ claim:

"Facts are bad, so censor them." 

Here, his claim or statement has a presupposition built into it that the so called misinformation is actually facts and not actually misinformation. 

Looks more like a sarcastic comment than a serious argument.

[To Rationalissimo]

No, its a serious argument. This person thinks those doctors are telling the truth and thinks fact checkers are misinformation because they are a part of the deep state, and that social media is censoring information because they are trying to hide the truth. 

There should be an appeal to sarcasm fallacy, because fallacious arguments sneaks in through humor and sarcasm. 

Also, why do they call it, "begging the question" when its not a question? That has always confused me.

No, its a serious argument. This person thinks those doctors are telling the truth and thinks fact checkers are misinformation because they are a part of the deep state, and that social media is censoring information because they are trying to hide the truth. 

Precisely. The "facts are bad, censor them" comment is sarcastic. The person doesn't really think what they perceive to be facts should be censored.

There should be an appeal to sarcasm fallacy, because fallacious arguments sneaks in through humor and sarcasm. 

The use of sarcasm isn't fallacious; if sarcastic arguments contained a fallacy they could probably be covered by something from Bo's library.

Also, why do they call it, "begging the question" when its not a question? That has always confused me.

You assume your conclusion and never ask if it is true, which "begs" the important question - "am I right?"

"Precisely. The "facts are bad, censor them" comment is sarcastic. The person doesn't really think what they perceive to be facts should be censored."

But they aren't facts, and his claim presupposes that they are facts. So, doesn't that make it loaded?

Rationalsimo is correct. This is a comment, not an answer.

"Facts are bad, so censor them."  

Clear sarcasm, but we can translate this to

p1. These doctors are posting facts.
p2. Facts shouldn't be censored.
C. Therefore, social media should not sensor these doctors' posts.

I really see no question begging or complex question fallacy, just an argument with a questionable premise.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

But the first premise presupposes that they are facts, when they are not facts. So, isn't that loaded?

All claims presuppose. 

"Exception: Some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious."

The assumption that what these doctors said is fact, is not universally accepted. 

"Description: A question that has a presupposition built in,"

Doesn't his statement have a presupposition built in? That being that what the propaganda doctors said is fact?

It is not an assumption, however; it is a claim. I was partially being facetious when wrote that all claims have presuppositions. There is technically no "pre" supposing, no assuming... it is an outright claim, in real time. Consider the following:

[claim] These doctors are posting facts.
[presupposition/assumption] The facts that these doctors are posting [now the claim] are helpful.

Let use the argument to the consequences here. If we were to grant that a statement such as "These doctors are posting facts," is a fallacy, then to be consistent, we would need to do the same for every claim. Every claim people make "assumes" the truth of the claim; therefore, everyone is fallacious who makes a claim. Or like the new world we live in, 2+2=4 only because we presuppose the oppressive western ways of knowing things; therefore, we are fallacious.

Remember what fallacies are at their core: errors in reasoning, not facts . If someone makes a claim that is factually incorrect, it is an error, but not a fallacy.

You're right, its a false claim.