Australia

This doesn't surprise me much; social networks have worked in tandem with governments, allowing them to call the shots to remove any content that opposed their political agendas, narratives, and opinions, to the extent that facts were flat-out censored to paint certain political opponents in a bad light, or worse, create potential legal issues.

It created a world where: when disapproval inside an echo-chamber fails to a critical mass of people telling the truth, just pretend the content doesn't exist and then gaslight people using official media outlets, including Congress and the White House.

So it gave people the impression there's no difference between the two. Not only were disapproval and state force in agreement, they colluded.

Russia has elections, where people overwhelmingly vote for Putin..

You're assuming mutual exclusion. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

[dead]

The civil rights movement was organized before social media existed.

When did social media enable dissidents to do anything?

An authoritarian state might have more legitimacy in applying the restrictions than a for profit company. Think about it.

But really, people should communicate with each other by means not including algorithmic feeds optimized for engagement. Preferably including as little emotion as possible when it comes to discussing policy.