And THAT is part of the danger of "social media". Throughout history, it's that "vocal minority" that in many cases is responsible for human progress. That vocal minority has included voices like Galileo, Marie Curie, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein and...Elon Musk. Where would be be had those voices been suppressed, had they had no voice, had no one listened to their message. If instead of listening to those voices we held to established wisdom (aka group think)? We'd still believe that the world was flat, that lightning was magic, and getting around by horse and buggy. Science in particular is based on the scientific method-of posturing a hypothesis, of conducting experiments to validate or disprove it, of sharing the data and methodology to enable independent, reproducible results. Not by screaming "the science is settled" and silencing debate. I could go on, but don't want to make this more political.
The flip side-those minority voices? They can just as easily be an Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro or Karl Marx. The question is, to what extent do we censor free speech to "protect" from the possibility of being exposed to different ideas and opinions? Is there a point where the censorship is justified to prevent the spread of "dangerous" ideas? Who decides what ideas are acceptable or unacceptable? Proposing to murder someone would be widely considered an example, but would a discussion about assassinating Hitler have been inappropriate? Reportedly, right now, Facebook has cancelled their bans on such conversations concerning Putin. So talking about murdering someone is OK if they are a really bad guy? How about someone proposing political ideas some decry as dangerous? Imagine if we had Twitter in 1950, and someone proposed integrating schools, black and white people dating or marrying, doing away with things like poll taxes-would those things be labeled dangerous? Just examples-we can go on and on.
My take-it shouldn't be up to the board of a private company to decide what is or is not politically acceptable speech-if they claim to be a platform for open communication and discussion. Flip side-as a private company, I do support their right to set terms-yes, cognitive dissidence here. But even then, I'll agree there are limits-keeping sexual predators off such a platform I certainly support. But...where do you draw the line, and more importantly-who decides?