This may seem like a wild take, but perhaps it's worth entertaining that social media moderation as it exists today could be a significant impediment to the realization of those goals.
Censorship is a very real threat to scientific research but it tends to manifest as the state restricting research or pulling funding from politically unfavourable topics like climate change, as is seen in many American state governments and on a federal level under the previous administration. Scientific publication isn't exactly known for going through the channels of mass social media.
I talked about flow of information. Science isn’t done on twitter, and twitter is not for scientists or those able and willing to read papers. Twitter is for the 90% who rely on groups, and the more tooling we implement that incentivizes those groups to devalue intellectual depth, the more we restrict the flow of actual information at scale. Policing who is able to distribute which data is, simply put, harmful to the organism.
Improving signal quality != fire walling signals as a whole.
And that question is another one than "does twitter censor climate change-discussions?", right? My point was: yes, it does.
The only "legitimate" alternative is the legal process and that's too slow.
Personally, my lack of imagination makes me say we don't have an alternative right now.
I don't know how to interpret this, in that case.
But it might also be much, much smaller.
Currently, SpaceX is blocked from doing the first starship orbital test. Not for technical reasons, but for frankly totally bullshit bureaucratic reasons. A free speech twitter might be the right way to fight back against this government overreach.
I would argue the opposite: moderation reduces paid corporate shills (when done correctly).