They're not suppressing information they're banning people from their website for for breaking the rules that they agreed to follow when they made an account. Also twitter is probably the last place you should go if you want any information worth knowing

Twitter and any other site like it aren't news sources but advertising and personal information harvesting private companies. The fact that anybody can broadcast there anything is not due to the commitment to free speacch (lol) but due to the fact they aren't interested in what you say or write. This isn't literally their business. When something appears as profit damaging they'll remove it. And each user consented to this in the first place. Welcome to a user fucking industry.

Idk, if they can't ban people, then some people who should be banned won't be banned. If they can ban people, then some people who shouldn't be banned will be banned. Which would happen more, and which way is worse? I'd default to not letting them ban people--I'm not a big fan of censorship--but then they wouldn't have been able to ban Trump, and I'm glad they did, for the sake of national security if nothing else. BTW, I wonder, even if Twitter were classified as a public utility, would some people still be bannable, like terrorists? I would guess yes...