If people can't be trusted to consume information without censorship, is that a problem with the platform or the consumer?
If we accept the premise that individuals cannot be trusted with information, where does that lead us?
There will always be problems in society. Taking a narrow view of exceptional circumstances, characterizing it as dangerous or "an emergency" ignores the larger picture. Given a chance for rational, open dialog, people equipped to do so can come to conclusions based upon reason. It is the natural course of the dissemination of information.
I remember when the rallying cry of the hacker movement was: "Information wants to be free"
Somewhere along the line we've supplanted that with gatekeeping and walled gardens. Cynics will observe that there is no gatekeeping without walled gardens. Therefore, if there was a motive for censorship and gatekeeping, walled gardens satiated the need.
Can we say that there was not a pre-existing structure for censorship?
The Internet may have temporarily disrupted censorship for some, but it has been a case of solve et coagula. Dissolve and reform. Where before there was a limited conduit of information via mainstream presses and televised talking heads, there is now a curated garden of content. Simulated peer groups share their views. Those that step outside of the prescribed narrative can be removed. Thus the individual need not solely trust their taking head, they can look to their peers and fulfill their desire to conform to social norms.
You ask "What if it [insert-platform] wasn't censored?". As a cynic I must conclude that there would be no point to these platforms without censorship. They either wouldn't be created, or an overriding need to censor them would naturally arise. Censorship is the feature.