That is a wildly lazy "translation" of the subtitle of an article you clearly didn't actually read or engage with. His argument boils down to none of the above, and your final point is such an incredibly ironic statement, that it's hard to believe it wasn't intentional.

Twitter is, to his point, largely a worthless platform for discussion if you don't heavily curate your experience, because it does, by design (unintentionally, possibly), massively elevate bad takes, noise, and quick, pithy attacks, because they're easy to propagate, and it very clearly downgrades any argument that requires more than a few hundred characters to present (especially now, with the changes to how threaded conversations can be linked). Threads idea of moderating that changes the dynamic and value. Neither is actually good, and neither is particularly beneficial compared to other models.

But sure, "governments" and "media companies" and rabble rabble rabble. Next time, RTFA.