The interesting thing is that when attempts are made at alternatives, we have people doing everything in their power to stop the alternatives from existing.
Look at Parler for example: They did not create a secure website, that is bad on them. Then activists stated targeting them and coordinated to get as much material off their site. The activists used Twitter to do this: https://media.cybernews.com/2021/01/crash-override2.jpg
Ostentatiously, this is against Twitter's TOS but no action has been taken as Twitter condones this activity against this social group and a competitor.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materi...
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/coordinated-h...
AWS then stopped providing service to Parler due to the content they were hosting exposed by this action. Well within their rights! But they excuse the same sort of content hosed by Twitter....
At some point people are looking at this and saying it is not a free market but a "Good Ole Boy's Club" and something needs to be done.
Personally, I think it was stupid for Twitter to ban people based on the message they send. But that is because I would like to be able to see what everyone is saying, not a small subset of people that uphold the "right" ideas.
The saying is that "Democracy dies in darkness"; We seem hellbent on throwing shade over every idea, opinion and inconvenient fact that comes along. We are bringing the night.