One formulation is that these are hallucinations. Another is that these systems are "orthogonal to truth". They have nothing to do with truth or falsity.
If there's an option to using alternatives to those you don't trust, like Google or Apple, that's good. If not you need to find an alternative service.
Facebook does this already. Not only posts and comments but also messages between two people.
The system is used to hide content, change content, shadow ban and the like.
Even by its own standards it's typically used incorrectly, but most users have no workable way to appeal.
The content reviewed is often visible to low paid workers in various countries. Similar systems have been infiltrated by hostile governments. (Twitter is a case in point.)
(If you use FB you can sometimes probe the system and better establish the details.)
The system is also used to prevent one user informing another that they've been squelched.
My guess, this would give rise to even less competent implementations and actual elimination of political opponents and the like.
I'm unconvinced that this was dealing with humans. To me it looks like automated systems that synthesise human style interactions. The code isn't ready for release but they did anyway.
On this issue I suggest figuring it out for yourself. Look into the technology a bit and decide.
This issue illustrates that public pronouncements and published material can be misinformation and opposite to the obvious truth. Great ways to identify liars for yourself.
1. Many of the creators of web sites and many of the users have changed. The creators often know diddly squat except some framework, they often work for a dullard and produce dull nonsense. The audience is often deeply "consumer" in the derogatory meaning of the word.
Result: When you're surfing you see so much of no interest that it's no longer fun.
(There is good stuff out there it's just so hard to find.)
2. The search engines also actively destroyed all those people who used to list interesting sites. Now the replacement for finding interesting sites is often some half witted algorithm, that's definitely not human, definitely hasn't the slightest clue and won't even let you take charge to get what you want.
3. People used to write their own material, experiment with program driven sites, be interesting. Now so many, even those who used to be interesting, make regurgi-posts all the time. They provide a link to an article that they've often not really read. That article is produced by somebody under time pressure who thinks the web is some text and a stock image or two, but mostly 100 times as much code as anything useful, so they can watch your every move, extract your money.
That's enough for now. If you want you can recreate the web as something that increases your intellect, not this destroyer abomination thing, choice is yours. If you have say five or so friends similarly inclined you can do it. Your choice.
A defeatist piece. If you're determined and have initiative you can achieve a lot. If you depend on the legislators in society, like this author, you may indeed be doomed. But you don't need to be.
The good thing is that with defensive measures you can stop much of it. With retroveillance you may even be able to strike back from time to time.
I'm acquainted with people on social media who find that what they write on Facebook (say) is banned by the algorithmic being that reads before you post. Sometimes posts disappear. Sometimes they get sent to the naughty corner for 7 days.
The reason for a ban is sometimes a real head scratcher, as far as I can tell, but not always.
They've tried other places to have conversations. Some of those have also been torn down.
Some have gone away. I generally don't know where to, but some are setting up their own discussion spaces. (I've recommended that to those who've asked.)
Maybe a return to a former age where you controlled your own discussion spaces. A braai/BBQ in the back yard, a table in the corner of the pub, a ten day tramp through the mountains with four friends.
* Google kills projects at an increasing rate, the warning may be days
* Google has in the past destroyed quality images in their care
* If you don't pay you have only yourself to blame
I haven't signed up with Signal because it's a source of surveillance for me. It gives out a phone number.
It also leaks contact lists making it worse.
A communication medium has no need to force people under surveillance. Why not just assume you're an adult dealing with adults and let people choose. Choose their handle, need to opt in to sharing contacts. (Would also be ethical that they're forced to tell each person that they gave away their details.)
Is there any need not to have, online, in person discussions and learn for yourself, mixed to suit you and the institution? I think not.
Neither a one size fits all online lecture nor a physical lecture with a lot of students, is tailored to the individual student very much, or interactive. I'd prefer to see education that is personalised.
The business model of, "owned by somebody who can sell it", may be at the root.
The possibilities that existed then, exist now, if people want to make the effort to control their own lives.