Yes, all domestic media has also been corrupted by various agencies that wish to psychologically manipulate the masses. Some of this manipulation is to get you to buy things, while other wants to get you to think, act or vote a certain way.
The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Allowing that adversary to also control the platform itself is beyond unsafe.
The tricky thing is that the US built these tools, and opened them up for everyone to use. This libertarian position is what will ultimately be its downfall. They can't just go and block access to these tools for everyone outside the US, or heavily regulate them, as it will cause an internal uproar, but that is what they must do in order to survive this war. China is in a much better position in this conflict since the government has total control over the media its citizens consume (barring the rampant use of VPNs, which they can shut down at any point). They have no external but massive internal influence.
I feel like everyone should watch this 1985 interview of an ex-KGB agent[1]. It's more relevant today than ever before, and explains the sociopolitical state of not just the US, but of many western countries as well.
Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. They're just words. Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway.
Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?