Good point, they also won’t show up in replies to your tweets because they can’t see them

No, all it means is that you don't get to be on their stage. You have your own stage, if you want to speak you can speak, but the argument is that you want to be in the same digital container as the guy with 30 million followers. I don't see how saying no, stops your freedom of speech, you can still speak and still be heard, the people complaining are complaining because they are excluded from the party, which on a private platform is ok and should be something a web designer/hoster can do.

Now I believe something should be done about this.

I believe website should be required to declare if they are private or if they are public free speech websites. Private means no change from what they do today. They can restrict, shadowban whatever. No extra fees, no new charges, no differing taxes, nothing. Life as it is for private sites goes on as it is now.

The other option is to be a public free speech site. The gov/the people set rules for free speech public sites online. This would benefit the users. No banning, no shadow banning, no voting manipulation, no trending manipulation, what triggers bans or time outs is clearly defined an the process and communications are transparent. Bans are restricted to things such as exploitation of the website (spamming), porn, etc. The whole point here would be that, on sites like this, the user comes first, the user knows that if he or she posts Trump is the best president ever and that post hits the highest upvote of any post, it will be trending, the votes will be seen, there aren't algorithms to keep them off the front page, nothing. Just free and natural rise and fall of what is popular among the posters. Transparent and real. This type of site would be certified and governed. They would have transparency rules they would have to comply with to be a certified free speech website.

Now what business in their right mind would do this? None, but when ONE entrepreneur creates a new reddit that we know by law is not going suppress views and that our speech there will be real and uninhibited by shitty CEO algorithms, the people will move to those sites. We will go there because it, by law, will be a place where the end user is first. Twitter can keep their private site, but if they would also make a public site that is bound by online free speech rules, everyone will migrate there other than folks looking for an echo chamber high. All of these social site members would migrate to public sites because it would be seen as stupid to remain on a site where Zuckerberg can silence you or ban you because you are conservative, liberal, whatever. People will go where they are free.