See, this is where free speech can get tricky.
On one hand, you wish for everyone to have a say in the context of your country's rights to free speech in the public square, in whatever format they see fit. BUT what if that format is owned by a foreign company, which is at the complete disposal of it's totalitarian government, who positions itself against your country's supposed values? Perhaps, it is even being used as a tool by that foreign power to dull your populace, along with feeding it propaganda antithetical to your goals. By sticking to your values and allowing this platform in your public space, you're possibly screwed, but if your take legislative action against this company, you stand to look hypocritical and disingenuous to the large userbase that uses the platform, many of them being young people you would hope to at least curry some favor with for present votes and future support.
Or, you can have the opinion that true free speech does not exist, and is instead merely arbitrated by the powers that be, in a continuous infowar that is supplemented, at least this time, with retarded dances, braindead teenage pity parties, and exceptional individuals like Daniel Larson and Tophiachu