The problem with anything to do with social media in regards to free speech, censorship, and elections, is that no side is able to define and agree on a common framework that should be applicable to all parties without bias.

The same people who cry murder over censorship will turn around and outrage at provocations against their point of view, label it hate-speech or fake-news, and demand that Facebook/Twitter/Whatsapp take stringent actions against perpetrators who are "trying to influence the outcome of elections."

The problem is that misinformation, fake-news and hate-speech are ill-defined continuums that occupy a fuzzy space - there's no well-defined point at which a news story crosses the line and becomes misinformation or fake-news. Everything about a news story is tinged by bias and political narrative - the choice of words, the tone, the sources, the timing, and even what to cover. Even the most neutral sounding ones cannot escape tinging the story with a hint of what the author believes.

Given this, blocking social media by governments during elections is not so bad after all. Unlike other solutions that try to regulate it, the blocking is uniform across ideology and party.

Either that, or open it up fully and stop trying to regulate it in any way. There's no in-between point that is fair.