Twitter - and Medium - is about freedom of expression. But is it freedom of speech to let people publish their opinions and see that they are never seen and read by more than 10 to 20 readers?

It is not the case that everyone can write something insightful, provocative or relevant about an important subject, and then this message is read by many, by hundreds and thousands of readers.

It is not for anyone to reach many readers with what they have to say. The vast majority of us who have not managed to establish a large readership in the last 8-10 years can shout and scream as loudly as we want, we are still not seen by more than a few readers, usually fewer than 30-40.

We can deliver good content, but it's just not useful to reach beyond the tiny number of readers who happen to know about us from before.

The problem is not that the big fish in the pool - those with a well-known name - are sometimes censored or given the label "misinformation". The problem is that the algorithms of the big platforms only allow the posts of the many to be seen by only a few, while the big fish who are used to getting thousands of views always get more.

The success criterion is not quality in content, but whether the owners of the large platforms, through the algorithms, wish to let the small fish in the pool become visible, or fade into invisibility.

The problem is that success in the form of many readers is not based on quality in content, but on coincidences.