Even if there were such a push, and even if these companies claimed to be open and impartial, we could never be certain. It&#x27;s incompatible with the imperative of a publicly owned corporation (to maximize shareholder value), and more broadly, with any institution&#x27;s first goal (to preserve itself).<p>Imagine that someone wanted to share information which was detrimental to a social media corporation, and he&#x2F;she published it on that same corporation&#x27;s social media platform. (This could be an investigative report exposing some unsavory practice, or merely promotion of a competitor&#x27;s product.) Completely suppressing the story would be counterproductive for the corporation (Streisand Effect), but they would certainly pull various levers to limit the story&#x27;s exposure on their site, insofar as they expected such intervention to go unnoticed.<p>This problem is solved by things like federated social networking, where everyone&#x27;s updates are published by independently controlled sites. You (as a content consumer) would subscribe directly to these sources, and you&#x27;d directly control the algorithms that determine which stories float to the top of your news feed, or some user-friendlier version of same.