Omicron and (to a lesser extent) Delta variants changed the game on transmission. They event provided the receipts in April 2021 of a study showing 90% decrease in virus transmission.
You can choose to believe this is narrative but it was backed by evidence.
The broader question about controlling misinformation is a tricky one and government pressuring social media companies into banning people isn't the ideal situation.
However, framing it as people being banned for "Any suggestion to the contrary" is at the best disingenuous. What I saw were people advocating all manner of alternative to the vaccines and spreading disinformation getting banned. A specific instance: Remember all those yarns about how people would now be sterile because of the vaccine? Well, birth rates are now back up to where they were[2] and nobody's shown to have been sterilized because of it. It's one example of just outright misinformation that deserved a ban.
This is the "fire in a crowded theatre" debate in different clothes, and it's a hard argument. If you think of this in terms of pure capitalist viewpoint, maybe instead of the government pressuring social media companies the alternative is that drug companies sue Meta et. al (and users) for defamation and libel. I'm not sure how that's a better system and wouldn't lead to the very same thing happening but it's the only alternative that seems immediately obvious.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/10/covid-pan...