If you want to "fairly" represent the cultures of the world (by population), Twitter would be run by a majority of CCP Chinese, and anything that contradicts the party would ultimately be censored, and people who speak against the party would be immediately reported so they can be imprisoned.
Lots of cultures have attitudes towards human rights that are wrong. Some cultures are downright barbaric, and believe in things like stoning gays or executing women who commit adultery. They are incompatible with a free society. When their societies mature to the point where they can identify with our values, they can have a seat at the table.
The West has, for a long time, believed that other cultures were "downright barbaric" and needed to "mature to the point where they can identify with our values" before they could "have a seat at the table."
So long as bigots run tech companies, there will be a market serving the other 6 billion.
Even our former president doesn't fall into the bin of "explicitly calling for violence, saying entire races, lgbt people, specific religions, etc are 'diseases', 'paedophiles', 'should be locked up, executed, …'," I'm not going to debate whether he should have been censored; just that your argument is dishonest to an extreme. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but if not, you should re-examine your assumptions. You might be being dishonest with yourself.
My own opinion is that the best way to make Twitter fair (or academia, whose studies you cite) is to have broad representation representing the world. This includes:
- Middle Eastern Muslims
- African Americans
- African Africans (e.g. living in Africa)
- South Americans
- Indians
- Chinese
- Koreans
- Russians
- Folks in red states
- Etc.
Those refer to actual Koreans in Korea, not Korean Americans.
If something offends a majority of people, remove it. If it only offends Western liberal white San Francisco types, keep it. You'll find most of the world doesn't agree with anyone else on issues like gender relations.