Has anyone worked out if it's a good thing that private capital gets to decide whether a democratically elected politician can speak directly to the people?

(Not an attack on Facebook or Twitter; not a defence of Trump. Just a genuine question, about governance and power.)

I don't know the answer, which is why I asked. My instinct is that the question should never arise. And it only arose here because the other governance and legal checks, checks within the power of the State, failed first.

We (may) agree it is bad (in the abstract) for capital with oligopoly channels to cut off elected politicians. What can we learn from the fact that (perhaps) most us think they were right to do so here? What failures made it right? How do we live on the other side of the rubicon?

Maybe capital like Facebook and Google already has that power with data and algorithms? Maybe that's what the slow kids at the back - like me - failed to realise until now? Maybe we're already on the other side of the rubicon?

If the real story here is failures of collectively 'owned' governance ie the law, politics; and we don't like the consequence ie that huge democratic power ends up 'owned' by private capital; you might hope it spurred better collectivised governance? https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1347830291197550592?s=19