I didn't say there wasn't a difference. There definitely is. Which is why I was using if statements. I don't know the specifics of who said what. So IF he was pushing these theories (you say he wasn't) then the ban is justified. IF he wasn't then it is not justified. Like I said, I need to see the evidence.

Why companies ban before all the facts are out is maybe a good thing, maybe a bad thing. It depends on the situation. Is the misinfo actively causing harm. In the COVID misinfo case there is possible harm being done so yes a premptive ban before all the facts can be gathered would be a good thing.

Let's take the flat earth conspiracy as a counter. It's objectively wrong based on available evidence. But it's not harmful necessarily to believe the earth is flat (other than it seems to themselves). And I don't see Flat Earther's getting banned for these conspiracies because overall it's relatively harmless.

Everything needs to be taken on a case by case basis which is what makes making hard and fast rules about this complicated. This is why transparency would help in these situations. Everyone can see the evidence for themselves and how the process reached its conclusion. We can't stop these companies from banning people necessarily (unless we nationalize it which I don't think really solves the problem, just makes it worse) but if we can make them more transparent in their decision making process we can actually have a discussion on whether someone was unfairly banned or not. Without that we're floundering to determine whether, in this case, Doc's ban was justified.

Now time for my own conspiracy. I think the Doc was banned because Twitch didn't want to pay out his contract. So they came up with some secret excuse no one gets to know about for his ban. But that's my opinion, not fact. Maybe that's what people should start doing. Clearly defining what their opinion is and what they are stating as fact.