[PraetorianGourd]

That isn't the concern. The concern is that the "rules for appropriate content" have been moved to restrict views that, while outside the mainstream, are not hateful or violent. The most obvious example being the suppression of COVID origins or criticism of COVID response policies:

Saying that "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence" versus Saying "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence, and as a result we should [do something violent/illegal]"

See the difference? The former should _not_ be restricted under any circumstance, even if the "evidence" is bunk. Let the fact that the evidence is bunk sink the theory, not the moderators. The latter, on the other hand, contains a call to violence, so it should reasonably be restricted.

Of course, a privately owned platform like Twitter/X could say the former isn't allowed on their platform and they would be within their rights to restrict it. However if they restrict it because of pressure from the US government, that falls into a more precarious situation.

Of course the 1st amendment only applies to the government. Platforms can restrict anything they want with or without explanation. But the government can't pressure platforms to restrict things, that _does_ violate the 1st amendment, as the private company is then acting as a proxy for the government.