Prominence just makes it tougher for the platform to avoid ambiguity in their justifications. Some moderation is valid but other times it can be too much. None of us have the time to spend personally reviewing the claims of every contributor who feels like they were treated unfairly.
We see this with Twitter now. People complain about various tweets being blocked, and there's always a "back-and-forth" about how Tweet A is against their guidelines but somehow Tweet B isn't. But when they outright ban (e.g.) Donald Trump, there's no ambiguity any more. The discussion moves beyond the minutia of spam / bot handling and into something more concrete.
Though you're right: censorship of those with smaller voices is at least as problematic. We just all ultimately have limited resources available and focusing on the more clear-cut examples is more likely to be successful.
We see this with Twitter now. People complain about various tweets being blocked, and there's always a "back-and-forth" about how Tweet A is against their guidelines but somehow Tweet B isn't. But when they outright ban (e.g.) Donald Trump, there's no ambiguity any more. The discussion moves beyond the minutia of spam / bot handling and into something more concrete.
Though you're right: censorship of those with smaller voices is at least as problematic. We just all ultimately have limited resources available and focusing on the more clear-cut examples is more likely to be successful.