Whilst no studies in these instances, early to tell. But blocking and deplatforming don't stop them being themselves instantly. Human nature is about fairness, people who feel they are unfairly treated, as they would by being blocked and deplatformed - will become more driven. Also banning anything has been proven not to work as well as intended. Look at music as one example of human nature and songs that wouldn't even chart, get banned by radio stations and boom, they suddenly chart without any radio or TV play. That was the case before the internet and such mentalities in humans still exist. Something that nobody is interested in - gets banned and suddenly people get curious about it and even if they didn't want it, will show more interest that they did prior to the ban. It's those people who are on the fence that will seek out those banned items and if that happens in isolated bubbles without balanced input. Then you see how it can be counterproductive.
But alas proof in these instances will only become apparent down the line and will go unchecked and unbalanced until then. That may well be a problem, maybe not. But it all gets down to wait and see, and that most often - never works out well at all. More so when the ban hammer has been played.
But you are totally correct and is a case of no simple solution, though I do feel banning is an extreme solution.
Yes the whole good-faith aspect is key, we presume the best and any bad-actor has a field day stamping all over that good-faith default, which sadly can change that good-faith default into a cynical pessimistic mentality and that is just depressing. But then we know that one bad apple can spoil the bunch. Just as true with humans.