You say that like there aren't hundreds of social media platforms out there now and like it isn't trivial for a technical person to set up your own social media service on some "bulletproof host" in Lithuania or Russia.

There isn't a dearth of social media. There are a couple of GIANT social media websites that have sprung up in the last 2 decades, but there are dozens of semi-popular niche-ier forums that cater to any rant you might want to leave.

This is complaining that you won't be able to get all the audience you want for a deranged mole people rant. It wasn't too long ago that there were only one or two TV channels in any one area - should the mole people rant have been a mandatory presence on those media as well?

We didn't even have those two platforms during most of my life.

Today there are more platforms to post your opinions on than ever before.

And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms but it seems to be a common view that Facebook/Twitter/etc. owe people access to their platform and maximum potential audience for some reason. Personally I really don't understand how those espousing free speech principles are making arguments that seem to require other private individuals and companies to repeat/amplify speech they don't want to

> And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms

That's the point. FB/Twitter are now public utility size and usefulness. Your blog, not so much.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that Facebook/Twitter/etc. are too large and have too much power for lobbying/influencing public discourse, although I think if anything making them a public utility would make that situation far worse as opposed to just breaking them up or something else to make the market more competitive

But also just because they are big platforms why does that give people a right to be on them? Is my speech less free because I have a smaller audience?

So this is all about, as another commenter said, complaining that you can't get the largest audience for your mole people rant. Facebook and Twitter are both very large social hubs, but they still get to pick what they publish. They are giving you the ability to publish anything you want until enough people (or the right people) complain about it.

It is democratized moderation. If your following is small enough to skirt the mods, then you can post what ever you want. If your following is huge and you post a bunch of lies about sewer mutants, or that the covid vaccine gives you rabies, or that Hillary Clinton is actually a space alien in cahoots with Planned Parenthood to subsist off the flesh of aborted 6 year olds, then YES, they will remove your posts, and potentially ban you for a period of time.

This literally happens to my aunt every few weeks. She gets a weeks long ban for basically reposting only Russian spam, gets her account back and does it again. It has never even been permanent.

Okay, but how is the situation worse than it was before FB and twitter existed?

The amount of eyeballs available today for even small sites is far greater than it used to be pre-facebook.