I'm assuming this comparison is supposed to have some rhetorical value to it? Otherwise it just comes off as puritan gatekeeping.
Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a "massage parlor" (scare quotes intentional) is an alternative entertainment venue to your local strip club.
Better?
Your point really isn't coming across well here.
On the other hand, both underground dogfights and boxing matches are both questionable.
Your position is all over the place. It's sad, really.
Questionable alternatives to twitter are "alternatives" only in the sense that questionable alternative to mainstream entertainment options are "alternatives."
The entire point is that boxing matches are not questionable, while underground dogfights are illegal and not really therefore a reasonable alternative.
This discussion is going nowhere as long as you don't understand that.