Sorry Matt, I wasn't pointing at you, just a general statement.
My point is that those platforms are 99% gossip, opinion, speculation and promotion / add revenue drivers. Much of it is just rubbish or personal promotion. They're not news platforms and have no quality control. A lot of stuff is taken down because it is harmful, a lie or designed to manipulate, which apparently works very very well. I think that the owners of the platforms have an obligation to take that shit off, and every person who signs up agrees that the owner of the social media platform has the right to remove anything. Stuff is removed all the time because it is worthless, harmful bull.
If you want NEWS instead, the more traditional outlets have some filters, and quality control and stuff is not removed frequently because it went through some kind of vetting process to there in the first place. It may be biased but unlike twitter etc it has some factual basis and is not removed willy nilly.
If these wacko promotors of anti vax, 5G conspiracies, anti-mask ( and 1000 other loonie conspiracies) etc have an important message that is not made up, then they have legitimate avenues to argue them that would be subject to scrutiny at the time of publishing, or if they like, they can start their own webpage where they are the author, editorial control and have total control on what is printed and what is deleted, that way no one can take them down unless they really go over the top - which they often do.
Peter sums it up perfectly.
At least in the days before the internet the bloke down the pub had an excuse for a bit of embellishment and poetic licence.