Neither is banning those who make many untrue statements and at the very least correcting it
The trouble with correcting is that the correction effectively becomes an editorial, at which point social media becomes a publishing platform rather than merely a virtual public square.
If social media just wants to be a place where people can present viewpoints and each individual can decide which viewpoints to accept that's one thing, and it's reasonable for them to claim they aren't a publisher. As soon as social media starts to say that this viewpoint can be expressed but that viewpoint cannot they cease to be the "virtual public square" and become a publisher. If they attempt to become some kind of arbiter of what is true and what is not, they effectively become a publisher.
Look at the way social media has been working to remove videos presenting dissenting views regarding the coronavirus. Whatever their policy may be on removing things that contradict the CDO/WHO/whoever else, do they really think that dissenting viewpoints are so dangerous people can't be allowed to make up their own minds?
If we banned people who said things that weren't true we'd have to ban just about every politician from the public square. Come to think of it, maybe that isn't such a bad idea after all.
