Censorship legitimizes the information as genuine threat to status quo,  Streisand Effect applies : people spread censored information themselves, forming interest groups/channels/micro-platforms/subcultures that are bolstered by digital refugees from mainstream platforms. The idea that censorship can protect democracy is absurd:
Something like book burning lends a "credibility of absence" to the ideas in the books, a rebellious charm and intrigue that leads people 
to research what is actually censored and form their own opinions.
It doesn't matter if the books are wrong, blatantly false or incredibly
 biased: by burning them you proclaim them as a threat to the system, which boosts it status automatically with anti-systemic tendencies and movements. Like a forbidden fruit, the label "censored" ignites conspiracies and legitimizes fringe views barely connected with what is censored - as long as people see such ideas as inexpressible in public, they are treated on same level as suppressed/censored information.
This whole "deplatforming" debacle exposes the existence of specific
 worldview of "correct views" of platform operators, that is encouraged and everything else that is either suppressed or censored. 
 
Of course there could be good arguments for de-platforming, censoring 
and banning people, but each use of such arguments diminishes the neutrality
 and common ground in the culture itself, as a wedge issue that leads
 people away from 'platforms' towards new social circles:
 once a criticial mass is 'de-platformed' the system becomes an echo chamber
 where only "correct views" are allowed and spectrum of discussion goes
  one-sided: the platform itself de-platforms its "neutral platform status".
 The "correct view" culture
 simply can't tolerate debate and leads itself to opposition with 
 everyone not sufficiently correct on the same platform, creating polarization seen today.