> I get that you don't seem to like Democrats
No you don't get it. I am not American, but if I was, I would prefer Democrats, at least program-wise. And yet, I share the OP's opinion.
Here's the thing - before social media (which are much more open to public than traditional ones), the general intellectual idea was that more openness in democracy, despite its apparent weaknesses, actually makes the whole thing strong. So for example, military budgets were much more open in the U.S. than in the USSR; this openness could be considered a flaw from the strictly military POV, however, it actually makes everything more efficient because it doesn't let people in power cover more corruption. And so on, you could find many other examples.
However, recently (in the past 20 years), the liberals (in the U.S., you don't have mainstream left, so please don't call them that) have rejected the idea that openness makes the society stronger. And the outcry about social media is just a manifestation of that belief.
Now, the action depends on this belief. If you believe that openness is bad for society, you will favor the censorship of social media, and, taken to the logical conclusion, a very controlled society like Russia or China.
However, if you don't believe that openness is bad, then the proper reaction to existence of social media is to have more openness from the side of the government (and also perhaps industry). In other words, maybe people (on social media) are anxious for information (and so they fill the void with speculation), but the government is still keeping too much for themselves, much more than the social media would allow to be shared. But it will take some time to catch up, because of course existing bureaucrats are used to have their ways.
Just an example. If the U.S. government agencies truly believes that Russian manipulated the election, why don't they just share all the evidence openly, as soon as possible? Why don't they call specific sock-puppets out as being known to be Russian hackers? The reason why not is because institutionally, they are still living in the old paradigm, where secret service operations couldn't be in much public light, because historically, there was no good platform to disseminate this information (citizens couldn't easily use or cross-check it but it was valuable for the foreign actors). Of course, there might be more cynical reasons why is it that way.. but hopefully you get the point.