Before the emergence of what is now called Web2.0 the world wide web was much more decentralized. One could browse several different websites each owned by an individual showcasing their work and interests. Content would reflect the site creator allowing self-expression to a global audience. This web still exists, but it exists in the shadow of Web2.0 and its sprawling userbase.
Since the late 2000s and thoughout the 2010s the "wild west" web has consolidated around a hand full of large internet platforms. There was a convenience of simply registering for an account at no cost and with no real technical knowledge required to set up a new profile. Over the course of the 2010s this consolidation accelerated accompanied by increasing restrictions and what has been called "social cooling". By surrendering power to a few tech companies this has seeded problems for the development of the web itself and with real world consequences. It used to be the case that when a distant relative forwarded a nonsense email to you it could be easily ignored and likely end up in your spam folder automatically. Now the content of that email is trending on Twitter and Facebook. If you came across an oddball website discussing a Time Cube it could be dismissed quickly for obvious reasons. This isn't the case with a YouTube video presenting itself in a more polished context, or similarly in comments below the video. All of the disinformation is in one place with a large audience now.
Consolidation onto a few websites has enabled more harm than any good provided by its convenience. One major consequence is the surrender of all power to these few companies. The worst of it is when it becomes a political battle for who gets to stay on and what is allowed to be shared. From the start this is already a concession since it already assumes use of the platform. Should conservatives be banned from Facebook? Should misinformation be filtered by an algorithm? Should something be done about left wing groups such as Antifa? The answer to each of these questions is: "Who cares? Leave me alone." If a conservative gets banned they can flock to yet another platform that dares to market itself as a "free speech" alternative. They'll accumulate there and sooner rather than later the site becomes dedicated to politics especially politics focused on culture wars. Twitter branded itself as a "free speech" platform once and now it's just an echo chamber for more culture war nonsense and pornography. Google used to have a "don't be evil" motto. A platform can brand themself however they want, but it doesn't change the fundamental issue of concentrating so much power in one central location. People actually think social media is now some kind of public square that should be regulated like a utility. The entire "debate" is myopic, and just boring now at this point.