Pragmatically, you can persuade indirectly by means of not allowing the opposing side to express itself. I’m not talking about persuading partisans, but rather the people who aren’t invested and aren’t engaged on the topic.

The dominant message they will see is the notion that the election was fully legitimate and had nothing substantial occur that would question its legitimacy. Any compelling or specific counter arguments are simply not visible. So that unengaged person is learning the accepted stance is correct, the unacceptable stance must have a disclaimer because it is so wrong/dangerous, and that if they take that stance they also risk being labeled as crazy or expelled from the platform.

No it's more about the importance of challenging bad ideas with good ones. All the justifications for spreading what we agree are lies are under the assumption that the value is in debunking them.