> With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse.

The people making these arguments aren't doing so in good faith. They're playing the victim for extra attention. They claim they're banned from platforms because of their "conservative" politics when in fact it was them directly advocating for direct and explicit violence against political opponents that got them banned.

There's nothing "conservative" about advocating murder for your political opposition. That's not a necessary part of a conservative ethos. It's also not any sort of political discussion. If someone openly advocates for your murder you can't meet them half way.

When platforms get in trouble they make the same bad faith arguments. Parler whined claiming AWS dropped them for being a "conservative" platform while it was clear Amazon dropped them for not taking any meaningful steps to shut down open and explicit calls for violence.

You are describing an important and functional element of social networks going back thousands of years. Substantially new and different ideas most of which are bad and stupid face a trial by fire and over time society adopts the survivors.