> you have the option not to use it.

I think this misses the point.

Twitter, Facebook, etc cover a majority of Americans. These social media platforms have a significant effect on the beliefs and values of their users. Divisive, outraging content drives engagement. This leads to the curation of echo chambers that work to continually galvanize and outrage users.

I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation.

I don't think this can be ignored with the quip "just don't use the platforms". These platforms have the ability to form public opinion, and that is a problem for democracy that we as a society need to solve.

> I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation.

I think this ascribes a lack of self-determinism that I see in a lot of these arguments. We (the people) give Twitter and Facebook that control. If they have violated the norms we (the people) have set in such a way that we want to take that power back, we can. This seems self-evident since you are a non-user.

Your argument, perhaps taken to an extreme, is "The majority of Americans have 'voted' to let Twitter decide their votes, therefore the control Twitter has over our democracy is valid".

I don't accept that argument. I think most people who are active on social media are not aware of the effects it has on them. Social media is designed to sink its claws into your brain in an addictive way.

Allowing Twitter free reign crosses the line between Democracy and Mob Rule. To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves.

> I think most people who are active on social media are not aware of the effects it has on them. Social media is designed to sink its claws into your brain in an addictive way.

This is not true. Most are aware at this point that social media is not healthy and is addictive. Saying they don't is the equivalent of saying you didn't know smoking was bad in the 90s.

> To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves.

I think your comment is weirdly contradictory because yes, I agree we should protect the ability for people to think and choose their media consumption for themselves. Don't like twitter's moderation decisions? Leave it.

I don't disagree with your arguments. I do disagree with having Twitter, a monopoly, compared to Pravda, a state-sponsored communication channel. Ignoring practical feasibility, I suspect if you tried starting a platform that disagreed with Pravda, you'd risk your life. I don't think starting a competitive platform to Twitter will put you at a higher chance of being arrested, kidnapped, or killed by the US government.

I think there are fairer comparisons to be made, but Pravda is in my opinion not one of them.

The power of these corporations is a big issue, but the deletion of obvious misinformation and fake news such as the tweet in question here is clearly in the public interest. If anything, future regulation of social media platforms would likely include provisions that force the social media platforms to delete misleading content like this tweet.

So what would you suggest? Allow users to incite riots and violence on all platforms?

Ultimately free speech means nothing if the legislature can be stormed with the intent of kidnapping/murdering members of the process.

Twitter was an essential part in allowing the storming of the capital to happen. Without their signal boosting, none of this would have happened.

They do not become the hero because they got ban happy after the fact.

How does this argument go? Pravda was not "the ministry of truth" because soviet citizens had the option to not write in it (or read it)? I really do not understand what you want to say.

I'm impressed people keep making the "option not to use it" argument. Our lines of communication are monopolized. "Just don't use Facebook/Twitter/Amazon" is an irrelevant argument since there are no alternatives.

You can absolutely love comfortably and normally in the US without Facebook or Twitter. It's more challenging to avoid Amazon entirely, but you can easily avoid supporting them directly.

I understand the practical difficulty of another platform being created and being successful, and thus the general recommendation of "not using the platform" is futile.

However, this is a comment thread of OP comparing Pravda to Twitter. You are not at a higher risk of death by the government for trying to start a competitive platform to Twitter.