A good start would be government officials and institutions to stop relying on and promoting (on) them. Ministers in office shouldn't be using them to communicate with their constituents. Public service broadcasters shouldn't be publishing on them.
Then it would be great of the population follows.
But it is certainly not the role of government to decide what foreign communications services their citizens can access.
Autoritarian censorship is not a democratic tool even if other apparently democratic countries are doing it.
It's not censorship to defend against cyberwarfare.
An overly simplistic approach to free speech is naive and counterproductive in a modern environment. These aren't serious people having a reasonable discussion. They are propagandists on a psyop platform, design to sow discontent in our democratic structures.
The line of defense is not banning and silencing, people will get around that and you just make free advertisement. Will you fine or detain people reading banned opinions?
The actual defense is proper education and healthy, welcoming, accepting society. That is harder to make and maintain than banning IPs, the western world by and large cheaped out and stopped caring since the 80s.
This "we, >smart< people will be able to >illegally< disable these artificial barriers, but those >old aged dumb people< will and should not" plan is not really a good setup for enforcing a "democratic" order. It is a much more authoritarian and naive approach, and a similar system is what led to the recent rise in social bubbles, conspiracy and fascism. For a more specific example, it made western society believe racism was a solved case since the 80s, because us, "smart people" controlled the mainstream discourse.
Absolute and true freedom of speech, with all its drawbacks and legal greyzones needs to exist.
