I'm not sure you're really addressing the spirit of the problem. Twitter is, in practice, used in a certain way. Twitter also makes public statements about its service and by emphasizing certain types of actions in its terms of service implies (but does not guarantee) that it works in a particular way.

The Twitter files are a burger with two patties.

The first patty is that they show that Twitter has been misrepresenting its service to a significant extent by suggesting (or sometimes flat out stating) that they act primarily as a multi-way communications channel, minus hate speech, which is what it feels like they are when you use it. However, the Twitter files show that they were secretly acting more like a mass-media publisher at times by shifting attention to places that they felt, for good or for ill, were better. We get upset when companies are greenwashing, when they're misrepresenting the mileage of their vehicles, when they put filler in their hamburgers--these are not nothingburgers, they're actual burgers (in some cases, with too little beef). Twitter should be no different. A basic tenet of transactional relationships is honesty. Twitter's betrayal of that should not simply elicit a yawn, especially since it was not obvious (obvious that they had the capacity, not obvious what they were actually doing), and was reasonably impactful.

The second patty is that the Twitter files show that Twitter was far more deeply invested in carrying out the will of the government--despite not being total stooges--than anyone was letting on (government or Twitter). If you think that the First Amendment (in the U.S.) has any value in preventing government overreach--and let's be very very clear here that the kinds of things that Twitter was visibility filtering etc. here were way within the bounds of what the First Amendment allows so this was not the "normal business" of policing extreme speech--then every time we find such overreach, whether it be spying on Americans (Snowden), charging journalists for espionage (Hale), or sculpting what gets visibility by pulling the levers of social media (Twitter files), we should push back, and push back hard.

The special sauce is that the Twitter files yet again show that social media companies really do not know how to handle social creatures beyond having stumbled into ways to get advertising revenue from them. Between ignoring social factors and monetizing people, they're running around with increasingly frayed principles putting out fires because they don't really understand the consequences of how their own systems work. When you look at it from the outside with a critical eye, with all the messes and inaccurate moderation and so on, a cynical perspective is that the whole thing is being run by a bunch of raccoons scrambling madly around, despite the brave attempt to put on a good public face. The Twitter files--as other exposes have--show that, in fact, when you pull back the curtain, it is a bunch of raccoons scrambling madly around.

I notice that you didn't actually take up my challenge of justifying free discourse from philosophical principles, and measuring that against what Twitter's been up to. I think if you do that, it becomes very clear that Twitter is secretly wielding pretty big levers of power in a not-terribly-principled way, and don't know always know what to do on their own so cede that power to the government, and that this is a really significant problem.

It's less of a problem than that social media generally is a dumpster fire, but compared to a lot of other corporate outrages, this one should rank pretty high.