They do.

But this is the result of a complex intersection of factors, particularly contemporary journalistic practice. It doesn't just come down to their existence or size. The fact that journalists in the media that still gets the most "views" consider these platforms to be a way of "taking the temperature" of the country has at least as much to do with the way they "drive the national conversation" as anything else.

Look, I'm 100% fine with actually taking over these platforms, making them public spaces, removing all "censorship" of any kind (it would be actual censorship now, since it would done by the government), and watching them all deteriorate into an even greater stinking mess than they are already.

But I'm not fine with telling privately owned platforms what they can and cannot do, or with conflating their attempts to regulate what happens on their platforms with censorship (even in double quotes), or pretending that it matters all that much.

Meanwhile, I can still read Stratechery.

I think you might be surprised by how many people don't really use those platforms to any significant extent and, to the degree they do use them, it's mostly for entertainment and staying in touch with friends.

>drive the national conversation and consciousness

I honestly don't see that.