No one wants theft - but at what cost to privacy? You have a doppelgänger that is a bad person and you are screwed.
You may enjoy reading more from Tim-Berners Lee from around the time of Internet 1.0 (1996 'ish). Many of the core concepts you write about were supported by the original idea of connecting networks. Unfortunately, human behavior is not always "the best"... and that's where it get tricky. The idea of "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" for example. The core of your argument is that if we are mature enough to use the internet, we should be mature enough to read what we want, or NOT read what we DON'T want. The underlying assumption is that people are too stupid to know what is true and what is NOT true. I disagree. I think the onus should be on the writer to support their point-of-view. But then again, have you listened to a Democrat lately? To his credit, TBL is still at it.
It's a starting place - and analytics would show disproportions in team decisions. For example. in the military - 2-person control can be put in place for a reason. The real issue is that these companies lack controls over their employees - both visible and "quiet controls" - that sniff out such behavior and eradicate it.
This will help. The question can be put in an over-simplified way: Is social media the "information super highway" or a toll booth where they only let people through they like? Given the evidence provided that they are acting like the latter, expect full legal attack on them from the FCC.
Doggie Lives Matter.