These platforms hold way too much power in deciding which speech is allowed and disallowed. There have been many times where trusted public agencies provided incorrect guidance on COVID - why should they enjoy a monopoly on speech and trust on these topics? We need dissenting voices and speculation to be heard, because they are part of the societal journey to ascertain the truth. I’m also concerned that these actions…
Hearing the opposing view, doesn't mean we should pay any attention to flat-earthers and conspiracy theorists. We are not going to reach the truth that way.
There are also many experts that support hearing the opposing view by the way. For example, Yale’s public health Dean just came out in support of the right to argue that HCQ could save lives (https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-de...). This statement was made because one of the public health professors at Yale believes HCQ could save lives, and the Dean felt it is important to defend academic freedom and free inquiry. We need that to challenge what might otherwise be incorrect prevailing sentiments on how best to treat COVID. It may be a dead end ultimately, but I am not for shutting down all discussion around it.