Yes, with caveats. This whole episode reopens a conversation happening during the whole of the XX century, of how a free society defends itself against actors

Yes, with caveats. This whole episode reopens a conversation happening during the whole of the XX century, of how a free society defends itself against actors trying to subvert it. Trump's mass movement got as far as performing a very botched putsch on Congress to try and stop the ratification of election results it denounced. This was dangerous. The preceding years showed us that the rate at which people radicalized through social media was far greater than anything you could do to stop it, save from mass censorship it turns out and that still remains to be seen. I think that society owes a great lot to freedom of expression and indeed the social progress that progressives seek wouldn't have happened without it. Trying to consolidate it over the years closing the barn door to what now is occupying their old place as provocative, non-conforming, "immoral" speech is shortsighted and a detriment to society. But even with mild forms of deplatforming that already have caused much outrage, it came to this, a small abortive revolution playing out in Washington DC. You may disagree with revolutions or these revolutionaries in particular, but if you don't want one happening you must have the means to stop it from getting there, and you have to find a solution to unbridled social media radicalization. I wouldn't want as a solution having the Great Powers among Tech's moneyed interests being the ones deciding based on profit, political favor, clout or whatever motivation they may ultimately have.