That's the part I don't understand, you can still go in the streets and protests (well ok maybe we could argue if that's still allowed since it seems people are

That's the part I don't understand, you can still go in the streets and protests (well ok maybe we could argue if that's still allowed since it seems people are starting to be against peaceful protests now as well), you can still print paper and distribute it to others on public land, as well as send it to their mailbox. You can still pay for advertising whatever message you want to a lot of private outlets. You can still host your own content and platform anywhere on the internet. Apart for peaceful protests which I feel there's a weird sentiment that the police or military should intervene to suppress (which I think is the most problematic act against democracy), I don't really see where it is dying otherwise. Prior to Facebook or Twitter, there were no free platforms. You couldn't even dream to be on television unless you had a lot of money to pay to offer your own TV channel, or pay to be featured. So I really don't see the argument for Facebook and Twitter and all to somehow have to offer free content hosting and promoting for anyone. Why wouldn't it be at their discretions like it always was for private platforms to do so?