I agree......
within limits. The difference in power has to be accounted for in some way. To use an Australian example (as this is the place with which I'm most familiar) Andrew Bolt, columnist, tv presenter, radio talk show host, and multi millionaire uses his many media platforms to defame people he does not like. Specifically Australian Aborigines in this instance.
Now our defamation laws are decidedly slanted in favour of the rich and well lawyered. How does old mate in the street make the better arguments heard? Certainly the advocates among those he is defaming do not have the resources to even argue with him. They can rage on social media but they'd be competing with a man who has platforms which eventually reach every member of our nation.
As the platforms are increasingly controlled by a single individual, broadcast media platforms are not, or rarely available to opposing views, and certainly not on a daily, scheduled basis.
Then there is Karl Popper's view that democracies do not have to tolerate voices which use democratic institutions and tolerance to destroy those institutions and that tolerance. I'm in two minds about this. First up I would hope that robust argument would answer, but these hopes are being disappointed and rest, in any case, on the assumption that my interlocutors will argue in good faith. This is clearly not the case as they are trying to destroy the basis for good faith argument.
This leaves two perhaps three options.

1. State interference. Let's save that for the iminent outbreak of civil war.
   2)No platforming. Limited effectiveness, gives the bad faith actor more propaganda material, and risks silencing legitimate voices of enquiry whose conclusions may be correct, and so need hearing, or may be incorrect and so need debunking or further enquiry to establish the basis for an observed phenomenon.
2. Allowing the speech but demanding equal, prepared (questions and speech on notice) rebuttal. This risks being tarred as "no platforming" by bad faith actors.