Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning.
The only people they allowed to be wrong about the pandemic were govt officials. They could get it wrong and right it as many times as necessary.
No I don't agree with censoring _any_ voices - precisely because of this issue. The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me.
If a centralized authority wields power in a way that creates negative consequences, you don't give them _more_ power, or just hope that they'll do the right thing.
It'll magically take care of itself? Based on what evidence?
For example, we didn't need the Vatican, a king, or some other central committee to tell us that the sun was the center of our solar system - eventually the data and market of ideas exposed the best & correct ideas.
The best disinfectant for bad ideas is more sunlight - not coverups.
Tools that have been painstakingly engineered to exploit bugs in the human brain's OS.
On the whole I tend to view it as a good thing overall rather than a negative.