That’s an odd comment. Surely allowing many groups to exist independently is the opposite of tyranny? And imposing some set of values on several different groups would require tyranny?
I think what we’re seeing here is the unravelling of the whole Fukuyama thing - the 1990s, it’s the end of history, liberal democracy is triumphant, we will all share the same globalised values and only really differ in restaurant menus - all that. And the thought was that the internet would accelerate this and make it inevitable. The global village!
Of course, when they imagined a single homogenised world culture, it was… well, ours. They didn’t imagine a global village run with the values and lifestyles of Burma, Burundi or Bhutan - it was basically the US - where most of the big tech companies were headquartered. Just a coincidence, of course.
Then if you want to censor people to follow US values, well then at some point someone says, “which US values?” Imagine the internet starting in 1981 with the Reaganite Moral Majority, rather than in 2001 (more or less) with the Californian and New York wokesters. A 1981 FB would have banned you for suggesting men could become women if they wanted to, a 2021 FB bans you for saying they can’t.
Either way someone’s policing what you say. And they have to, because like the TV and radio it replaced, it exists from advertising, and nobody’s regularly watching things which offend and annoy them. The social media giant can follow public opinion, change public opinion, or it can simply die from lack of interest and general disgust and contempt.
They’d rather not die and changing public opinion is hard and might fail, it’s much easier just to follow. History never ended, we just stopped watching, and while we weren’t looking it changed a lot.
The end of Fukuyama.