I need to address one of the stupidest arguments that people make about social media censorship - that you're not entitled to a platform.
Well, of course you're not entitled to a platform. You're not entitled to have friends. You're not censoring me if you unfollow me. If you report anything that I've said to Twitter to get my account removed, since I've never advocated for violence or said anything that wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment, that's a different story.
The thing is that different platforms are...well... different. If I'm trying to book a theatre at 7pm on a Saturday, that means that I'm competing for that specific slot. If I get that slot, nobody else can have it. If somebody like Sam Harris wants that spot and the theatre gives it to him, the theatre isn't censoring me. The owners of the theatre just understand that they can make more money with Sam Harris there than me. In contrast, there might literally be a million people posting on web3 as I write this. They're not stepping on each other's toes by sharing the platform.
There's nothing pragmatic about social media censorship. This isn't like a museum deciding not to display a painting or a professor deciding not to include a book or a movie theatre deciding to not show your movie. The beauty of social media is supposed to be that everybody can have a voice at nobody else's expense.