Wait, either I'm missing something huge or this analogy is fatally flawed.

Are you claiming that the _government_ is censoring Twitter?

I don't think you understand the original comment.

1. Newspapers and Twitter should be able to and often censor themselves 2. The government shouldn't censor newspapers or Twitter.

On the contrary, the question I was asking is unclear: if, for a given platform, the only reason the wrong political speech shouldn’t be censored by rich and powerful men is because it’s too populous, what’s the difference if the government’s men decide what is too hateful/misinfo for Twitter and newspapers, versus the owners of those? This isn’t a rhetorical question either, I am curious for an answer!

I guess a common answer would be “you can move off Twitter, but you can’t leave your country” which is odd two ways: first, if you say you want hate and misinfo banned from Twitter (whatever those mean) shouldn’t you want that for all other big platforms? And it’s very possible to move abroad while not spreading hate and fake facts in the meantime, isn’t it?