From my perspective, as the creator of one of the threads that merged into this one, we are debating the degree of power over the debate in public square that a few CEOs now have, how they exert that power, and whether we as a society (expressed as users, product, consumers, customers, and citizens) decide if there is:
- a public interest in controlling disinformation and hate speech
- a public interest in having the square contain a wide diversity of opinions and ideas
- a need to have some system that balances those dynamics such that a few individuals alone do not have excess effective and arbitrary control over what is contained in each bucket, lest they at some point do the censorship work of the autocrats for them in return for opportunities to make more profit.
Some would claim that so long as the weapon of shutting down expression is aimed at my enemy then that is all I need to know. Some recognize that the weapon that can be turned against my enemy when its owner sees it in their best interest to do so, can just as easily be used against me, when its owner sees it in their best interest to do so. And want controls placed on the weapons use before it is turned in that direction. If we wait until it is faced that way it is too late.
Some here argue that there is no concentrated power to any worrisome degree. I at least am not convinced of that by the arguments made here.