You're totally dodging my point.

Twitter isn't meaningfully "media".

It doesn't make content. It doesn't claim to select content. It claims to be open. It claims to be a place to share your own views. Just like you were saying them out loud, except its potentially a LOT of people around the watercooler.

This fundamentally is unlike top-down content-selected media like Fox News, the New York Times, and so on.

Whether or not you believe anyone, it feels personal, it feels direct, it feels one-on-one-ish, and people use it as such.

Do you disagree? When you use Medium, do you think, "Oh, this is a biased publisher, and I interact with those things Medium has deemed aligned with its agenda for me to see?" If you use Twitter, is that what you're constantly thinking? Even if you manage the intellectual fortitude to ward off the illusion of open discourse, how many people do you think manage to do this? And why should they?

Do you think there is actually any value to free speech at all? If so, can you enunciate the principles? From those principles can you argue that the Twitter Files are actually a nothingburger?

(For that matter, can you argue that Fox News giving partisan newsish entertainment is a nothingburger? "Hey, there are a bunch of murderers in that neighborhood, so no biggie that Joe is one too...and sure, he can go kill a few more folks, whatever" is not generally how we do things.)

Why are you bringing up Russian and Chinese disinformation agents in this context? It seems rather disingenuous given the content of the files and my reply. That's not how the visibility filters were being used.