So instead of a siloed platform, you would advocate for a nation to allow tech employees in San Francisco to influence other countries' elections, censor their

So instead of a siloed platform, you would advocate for a nation to allow tech employees in San Francisco to influence other countries' elections, censor their politicians, control their societies' discourse, decide what's allowed and disallowed, and so on? That seems like a call for external rule and a threat to national sovereignty. There are real consequences to such acquiescence. Not everyone agrees with American progressive worldviews and Twitter obviously enacts one-sided censorship based on those views. As an example of the kind of topic that would be treated differently in Western social media versus other platforms, consider that India has historically treated transgendered people as a third gender (by my understanding). This feels more logical to me than trying to forcefully redefine existing genders or creating an infinite proliferation of genders, but under Twitter or Facebook's rule, any such opinions or debate would be deleted and users sharing such views would be banned. So why should recent rapid changes in Western culture take precedence over long-lasting local culture in this instance? I'm not claiming that either is right or wrong, but simply that the increasing degree of censorship and control enacted by American tech companies reflects the views and desires of a narrow minority globally - and therefore they shouldn't be given the power that they have. In the case of the farmers protests, I think there's an "other side of this issue" for the very problems you are alluding to. Factual errors, widespread misleading claims, meme-ification, and trolling are common tools of those who are on the side of the Punjab farmers and those on the other side. To call out only one side feels misleading to me.