I wouldn’t have made the reply I did if the post I replied to was advocating passing laws about social media platforms.

By exactly the same argument, OP's "coordinated war against freedom of expression online" is also "just normal democracy."

No, because that didn’t involve any sort of legislative action and is in fact clearly contrary to legislative intent.

On the contrary: yes, because that's irrelevant; the back-and-forth between disparate interests, and over interpretations of current legislation (and the constitution, for that matter), is just what normal democracy has that is lacking from other polities.

I don’t know what to say other than that is obviously and completely incorrect and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history should know that.

It seems, then, that I am to be judged wrong just on your say-so, for no particular reason.