Google could trivially spend $200 million a month on moderation and other editorial functions, they just would rather not.

I admit I haven't run the numbers on Google, but when I looked at YouTube, requiring human minimum wage moderators to review every video would cost billions of dollars a year - more than the entire site's revenue.

So, sure, Google could drop another 200m on moderation, but I don't think that would get you to full moderation, so you still need algorithms in there somewhere.

If Google becomes one (which they appear to be doing in some ways) I'll look for something that is more of a raw aggregator.

Google doesn't need to be a social engineer. Nor do many of the others who have decided they know what is "harming society and doesn't need to exist". Like a F*n small town preacher on a crusade to remove a book with dirty words from the library that is.

Attempting to restrict what can be published/viewed by do-gooders who think they know best is hardly a new gig. It just has different flavor now.