Perhaps we need the word "agorocracy" to describe "rule by markets". That's not quite what you're proposing, since you presumably only want the market to rule

Perhaps we need the word "agorocracy" to describe "rule by markets". That's not quite what you're proposing, since you presumably only want the market to rule over Twitter and not over the rest of society, but unfortunately the latter scenario is closer to reality than most would like. In fact, suggesting that having a few large social media companies to choose between constitutes a free market (despite the high switching costs and non-interoperable products) is as misleading as thinking that the First Past The Post voting system (and weak campaign finance laws) provides representative democracy.