Those of us who insist on a level playing field do so not because we care for "bad" ideas, but because we are concerned about who is going to decide what ideas are bad.
So, banning it results in them only becoming more embedded with the idea.
This is absolutely not true. You can go ahead and write a full blown, grammatically correct and even narratively interesting novel, submit it to a publisher (owner of printing presses), and they are under no obligation to print your book. Further, that publisher may decline explicitly because they don’t like your ideas.
There clearly are questions around FB/Twitter/Google/etc., but you seriously weaken your point making a claim like that.
They happen to just own the largest scale implementation of that medium, much like a publishing house.
Thirty years after the invention of the printing press, one of the most popular printed books was the Malleus Maleficarum, a treatise on witchcraft which triggered a witch-hunting hysteria that lasted centuries. The corrosive effect of disinformation has been clear for centuries and the medium by which it is disseminated is, in my opinion, hardly the concern. My concern is that until very recently, the controllers of these mediums (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) insisted that all ideas deserve a level playing field, rather than accept that some ideas are simply better than others.
> Before the 19th century, invention and innovation emerged primarily from craft traditions among people who were not scientists and who were typically unaware of pertinent scientific developments.
I think for every pre-19th century innovation that occurred in an "information bubble" there were many more that depended on the Renaissance attitudes toward science and discovery that were themselves predicated on earlier discoveries. If I had to give a realistic estimate as to when innovation truly happened without knowledge of pertinent scientific developments, I would look back to pre-Galilean times.