I doubt that qualifies as an unbiased poll on a random selection of the population. Regardless, X should absolutely not ban the ADL. "Banning" anyone from the conversation does two things:
it completely disqualifies any concept of an open conversation. It shuts out anyone on the "other side" who wants to talk about that side of the conversation. These are the exact people who need to be reached. Thus shutting them out defeats the entire purpose.
Related to (1), but for emphasis: It's either free speech or it's not. If you are silencing anyone, you can silence ANYONE. The conversation must be free or no one's mind can possibly be changed, and thus the division persists. The way to defeat lies is not accomplished by silencing the liar, forcing them into the shadows, but by shining light on them. We must be able to discuss it: let them speak, and show the evidence to the contrary. You want to end the division? This is the only way to accomplish it.
Banning the ADL would accomplish the opposite of a victory for We The People.
I doubt that qualifies as an unbiased poll on a random selection of the population. Regardless, X should absolutely not ban the ADL. "Banning" anyone from the conversation does two things:
Banning the ADL would accomplish the opposite of a victory for We The People.
This. It's better to keep them around to ridicule anyway.