Perhaps Twitter will become a reasonable platform now, with Elon Musk running it

In the era of widespread and widely available Internet, which has become so ubiquitous that for many people it has become pretty much an essential service (just like roads, postal services, hospitals, schools, etc), giant tech megacorporations have become pretty much quasi-governmental in nature. These corporations may not own physical land that they control and in which large amounts of people live, but they pretty much effectively own a sort of "virtual" land where people pretty much effectively live in a social sense. With literally billions of users, each of the online platforms owned by these megacorporations is pretty much effectively the size of a very large country (very few real countries have over a billion citizens).

While almost none of these platforms is essential for (almost) anybody's life and livelihood, for millions and millions, even billions, of people they have become such an integral part of their social life that it's pretty much as if they were "citizens" of these virtual corporate-owned pseudo-countries.

Pseudo-countries where the corporations are the totalitarian unelected government.

And that's the problem. These "virtual countries" with billions of "citizens" are undemocratic totalitarian oligarchies owned and run by an extremely small number of unelected, anonymous, facelss, and completely unaccountable people. Any decision that these people make will have little to no repercussions on them, and there's nothing that the "citizens" can do about it. There is no legal system in these platforms that would keep the "government" in check and hold it accountable.

Just consider how much more powerful these quasi-governmental online platforms are compared to a real country with a real government, like the United States:

• The real government cannot (legally) punish you for your expression of opinion. The corporations can.
• The real government cannot censor your legal speech. The corporations can.
• The real government cannot stop you from listening to any expression of free speech you want. The corporations can.
  
• If you are accused of a transgression against the laws and rules of the country, you need to be formally charged, with the charges being extremely clearly expressed, ie. exactly which laws you have broken and how. These corporations don't have to explain anything to you, and in the vast, vast majority of cases they will not tell you.
  
• In the real country you have the right to a fair trial, you have the right to face your accuser, and you have the right to present your defense. In these corporation-owned "pseudo-countries" you don't have any such rights, nor are you provided with any such rights.
• In the real country if you are accused and convicted of a crime, you can know exactly who accused you and who convicted you, who was the judge, who was the prosecution, who the jury members were. In the corporation pseudo-countries you will be punished by completely anonymous faceless people with zero accountability. You will be unable to know who judged and punished you even if you try to find out.
• In general, you cannot be cast out of a country you are a citizen of. With these online "pseudo-countries" you can be cast out, permanently, by the press of a button, at the complete whim of a single anonymous faceless unaccountable person behind the scenes.

And at this point in time, in the modern world, this is not an inconsequential thing. These are not just some random small online forums where it has literally zero effect on anything if you are banned. It's not a question of "who cares? It's just some online platform. There are thousands of others." 

Even though it really shouldn't, being banned from Twitter, Facebook etc, especially if you are a more famous person, is pretty much effectively considered (at least by the far left) as if you have been convicted of some kind of crime (usually "hate speech"). Yes, really. In many circles (way too many, and way too large), "he was banned from Twitter and Facebook" is literally used as a point against someone, to attack someone's reputation and personality, in the same way as if saying of someone "he has been convicted of rape". Heck, even Wikipedia articles of famous and semi-famous "right-wing" people will almost invariably note if that person has been banned from those platforms, as if that was somehow telling and important, in the same vein as if that person had been convicted of a crime in a court of law.

So yes, these "virtual pseudo-countries" are not inconsequential. At least at this point in time, in current society, they are given importance and weight, and their decisions (which, once again, are always made by anonymous faceless unaccountable people, often at a personal whim, without any sort of "trial") are taken with a somewhat similar importance as the decisions of an actual court of law, an actual judge. In many circles being banned from Twitter is considered almost as bad and telling as being convicted in a real court of law.

Which is just pure insanity.

Now that Elon Musk, the "based" king, has succeeded in purchasing Twitter, perhaps at least when it comes that platform things will change. Perhaps random censorship and suppression of free speech will be removed, and people will not be banned based on inconsequential opinions, the platform will stop being a far-leftist totalitarian regime, and all these "pseudo-citizens" will have, at some level, some actual rights and protections.