Danger of Social Censorship

A danger of social censorship is that 'fringe' or 'reactionary conspiracy groups' don't get the full light of perspective they deserve. In other words, they go 'underground' and their advocates will experience a 'black and white' bias against 'mainstream' ideas in their mind. (When a narrative of self-identification 'ideology' is fueled 'against' something, it runs into dangerous territory, and risks lacking its own independent investigation)
As much as dangerous mainstream narratives perpetuate (exacerbated by social media marketing and politicking) it's critical to avoid the tempting logical trap of segregation or reactionary self-identification (is there a word for that?).
Specific examples of this issue would be evident in movements 'against' a non-mainstream ideology like those expressed in the worldviews of David Icke, or Alex Jones. The contrast against mainstream gets reinforced in 'us vs them', "they", "all the sheep" divided ideology. Not that the core of ideas presented is fundamentally invalid, but It becomes evident that a polarized divide groupthink phenomenon emerges in some circular reasoning bubbles that lose oxygen of unique independent thought. The result sometimes exacerbates the differences between people instead of commonalities.
Because of this, 'conclusions' from the 'ideologue', with its potential circular logic against another 'idealogue', (ideas like: "5G creates the Covid-19", or "The Earth is Flat, because Nasa Lies", or "All fires in California are created by directed energy weapons") don't get the clarity and Evidence they would need.
Another example is when a bubble has started to become potentially dangerous from an ever-growing 'brand-cult' like in 'Brian Rose'. Although this journalist generally means well, he is taking the dangerous step of using 'reaction against mainstream-thinking' in a disingenuous and dangerous way. His values of deep respect for 'freedom of thought', 'freedom of the press' / 'right to free speech' would be out of touch with the marketing models implemented.
This falls into the same trap, in this case of going so far as to monetize the "Against Censorship movement" which is a deep conflict of interest that is sometimes hard to recognize. (if an individual has themselves been infected with ego-tempting polarization politics). All of this should attest to the dangers and folly of reactionary politics.
Since those 'fringe' or 'reactionary conspiracy groups' don't get at least a little light of perspective they deserve in mainstream media, and the following, 'reactive identification politics', we miss out on the excellent points of truth they could offer;
My intention and thoughts shared here are hopefully throwing some light on the lack of light created from the response to social-media censorship.