Sure it wasn't the sole cause but it was definitely a strong contributing factor. Listen to the interviews of the people that were there. It's human behavior

Sure it wasn't the sole cause but it was definitely a strong contributing factor. Listen to the interviews of the people that were there. It's human behavior when people don't feel like they are being heard and understood they raise their voice, become less agreeable, and when something is important enough to them and there is no peaceful way to resolve things they become violent. Acknowledging what someone else says and repeating back to them what they are saying works amazingly well for disarming conflict. When dialog ceases to be the means by which people can peacefully resolve their differences then violence is inevitable. Censoring and banning people further escalates conflict because it takes away people's ability to feel like they are being heard and understood. If instead the dialog going something like "well why do you believe that, what evidence do you have to support that claim, did you consider X, here's why I disagree with you, etc" then maybe people would have changed their minds. Instead, by and large, the approach taken by the media and tech companies was "you guys are wrong, you're an idiot, and we are going to silence you". I don't think that helps and only further escalates things. Along your point though, should there then be censorship of the ideas that led people to the BLM riots? I don't think censorship is the answer there either. Who gets to decide what is true and how does that not lead to dangerous concentrations of power?