What is the lesson here?
When people are banned, it's the platform deciding the reputational risk of association isn't worth the money you bring in. Given reputation impacts can be huge - it's hard to see how you'd ever be the right side of that equation.
Even worse, the platform may decide it's not even economic to make sure each banning is fair....
Ultimately I suspect the only way to rebalance the balance of power is to use collective power.
So having large number of friends on the platform that will campaign on your behalf, taking out insurance ( another pooled method ), or even having formal Unions.
In essence that puts some of the economic cost of getting the decisions right onto the platform users ( as the friends/union does the work, and makes the case ). Pooled insurance has a similar economic basis ( platform users bear the cost of the insurance ).
Lets say for example that you somehow make $120,000 a year over expenses with instagram (don't ask how, it's just an example). This is far more than you previously made in your last job by double. The problem is it takes nearly 100% of your working time to make this income on that single platform. Any less amount of effort and your income drops significantly. Now, you are in a trap where you cannot split your efforts between platforms, you have to go full in on one.
Your solution would be to make far less money... um, safely? Whereas a far more realistic solution would be to ensure that you don't live to close to the edge of your means and put 1/3rd of your income back in savings in case the day the platform fails/kicks you occurs.
So you could think about not operating as an individual who can be picked off, but operating in a collective way - either through friends, insurance, or unions.
ie what's your support network if you are dropped through no fault of your own.