Yes. And unlike the Government, I an individual have no say in how Twitter operates. I have have no say in how Facebook operates. I have no say in how Google operates. Those three combine account for the overwhelming majority of the public square that is the internet.

I cannot vote out the CEO of Twitter, Facebook, or Google because I think they are doing the wrong thing. This is worse, because individuals are powerless.

And before you argue that people can go to their own websites, how is meaningfully different from Chinese citizens who use VPN's. After all they can still access information.

In both cases it is near impossible for a message, movement, or anything else to grow without the use of the core popular platforms. And any message which could grow in other spaces would have the counter narrative pushed on the core platforms.

Ummm the early web is a counter example. Any one can publish a website. And a lot of the content that makes these monoliths popular is user generated - it could easily be captured by decentralized system. Put an Insta UI on email and make it cool.

The whole American system says it is ok for successful companies to grow large and powerful. I personally wouldn’t mind some anti-trust actions, but even better would be for people to prefer non-mass media. Visit my website and listen to the guitarist at the local bar and watch indie films and read good books rather than popular books. But others have other preferences.

Making real change is society is not the same as propagating memes or conspiracy theories - it takes time and effort and a lot of eyeball to eyeball persuasion. If you don’t like what Twitter is doing you can create a competitor, and make it popular. The difference is competition - if you persuade enough people, you can replace Twitter. If Twitter is anti-competitive then there is a legal recourse. If you fail to persuade people that twitters method of trying to encourage truth and virtue are bad, that is a fact of your social world. Try again or give up.

> And before you argue that people can go to their own websites, how is meaningfully different from Chinese citizens who use VPN's. After all they can still access information.

If you're going to write out a response centered on "anyone [being able to] publish a website", at least respond to OP's point. How is that a solution that's in any way better than telling CCP citizens that censorship is totally fine because they can use a VPN?

Distinction without difference. Twitter has the capability to whip up a sizable mob and inflict violence anywhere in the world, on a spectrum from cancel culture to corporate cowering to violent riots to color revolutions.

The principle of free speech is enshrined in the constitution at a time when the only thing powerful enough to constrain speech to this degree was the government.

Times have changed. Twitter is more powerful.