In Democracy, the channels of free speech shall represent opinion diversity. The problem is, of course, that these - year long established - channels can be automatized to artificially (e.g. with bots) amplify political opinions, so the communication channels don't stay for the diversity of opinions at the end of the day.

Channel providers are facing very difficult decision: either to let people comunicating however they want, to let bots amplifying messages, including harrasment. Or to filter them - and here we have a biased censorship (biased by political opinion of providers).

Banning has a negative side effect of moving to uncharted channels of communication.

I can see it from the German perspective - QAnon driven conspiracy lunatics are communicating via Telegram. No censorship there (alledgedly), besides of the "herd censorship" within the fanbase of FlatEarthers (and such). If you go there with your opposite opinion you will experience kind of virtual mob justice there.

So, mainly there are two poles:

_Megapolis_:

On the one side we habe big established (politically biased) channels who may ban, mute and block users on behalf of other users. One may call it censorship, another may call it "domiciliary right" of provider.

_Village_:

On the other side we have a darkish channels where you (as user) dare not to explain your opinion, if contradictory to the mainstream there, otherwise one will be probably even in a personal danger. This leads to even more division between society, for building new pseudopolitical sects, for brainwashing entire society like QAnon are trying to do using ARG methods.

And honestly, I cannot decide, which one is better...

And this is nothing new - we always had such options, long before digital world emerged. Now it is just more visible. The people are still the same.