But I believe this is at the core of the issue when people complain about moderation. I think it is very true, even sites like Wikipedia are negatively affected on political topics while paid external editors are free to roam to push up articles about themselves or their companies. This is the worst kind of moderation I can imagine.
If we talk about moderation against spammers and scammers, a vast majority would agree on the other hand. But these are two separate issues in my opinion.
> I would also add that no one prevents the original poster, or anyone else from using other services.
I think there is concerted effort to purge alternatives in the current market situation and I think this nothing else than an excuse to justify certain content moderation. I think platforms have this freedom, but there are also consequences to that.
That seems a fairly modest proposal.
I think people VASTLY overestimate the influence of things like the FB feed on the real world. The best evidence they ever seem to have for any claimed effect is the number of people FB say saw/interacted with a post. They have a long history of inflating those numbers, yet the critics are all too happy to use them. The activity on social media that seems to actually result in real world outcomes seems to generally be the boring work of community building.
Also, how do you deal with spam or noisy posters in a "1:1 and neutrally ranked (e.g. by timestamp)" feed?
I would also add that no one prevents the original poster, or anyone else from using other services. I mean, here we are on a narrow social media site discussing the topic.