While removing accounts disseminating hate speech, disinformation, and other forms of violent and extreme expressions on social platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram may be a quick and convenient solution, we need to be thinking about others forms of solution as well.
It seems that more stringent implementations of prior restraint against malignant expressions in the Internet with legal consequences for offenders would be immediately pragmatic. We must take more substantial legal actions to hold the perpetrators legally accountable, although this is by no means the only measure we should take to deter such crime, as banning accounts through deplatforming nips the problem nowhere near its bud, not to mention its root.
But again, how far should we go with prior restraint without violating the spirit of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech?
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a iman in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States
Dissenting speech isn't a crime and never should be. The reason these private companies can ban people is due to the fact that they are private companies. People agreed to their terms of service when they signed up and get banned when they violate those. The government censoring people would only give legitimacy to their bullshit claims.
While companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are well within the right to ban and block anyone they wish because they are private companies, it is terrifying to see that what information we consume and ideas we express can be taken away because those companies disagree with us or believe our ideas are offensive. The problem is that we have private corporations controlling our everyday speech and pretty much our primary way of communication these days.