In fairness, you should disclose that you're speaking as a disgruntled, ex-creator.
I think you have some legit complaints about platforms' algorithms and some of the ways they exploit creators. In other parts, you post sounds quite paranoid. Platforms are not psi-ops campaigns. They don't have a narrative they want you to push, but they are businesses that want to maximize profits, while steering clear of controversy, illegal content, copyright infringements, etc.
Basically, it's a lot more banal and a lot less nefarious than you make it sound. Yes, there are horror stories of content moderation gone horribly wrong, but they're the exception and not the norm. There are also plenty of reasonable explanations for how they get these things wrong that don't involve conspiracies or the like.
Personally, I believe that the only difference between Elon Musk and his other industry peers, is that his peers don't spend all day tweeting about what they're doing.
In the very least, these platforms are in no way neutral. Companies are led by people who have their own personal opinions, but lets ignore that. Even if the position is as simple as "Go click on the ads" and the censorship is "Everybody must use the exact language standards of a daytime toothpaste commercial" - Those community standards are still a structure specifically designed to control what people do and say. It's not paranoid to read what's spelt out in the terms of service.
The word narrative makes my skin crawl. It's a weighted weasel word. But to my point: narratives created to sell products are still narratives. The top of the best selling results for marketing/sales books on Amazon is titled "The Story Selling method". It's a trendy buzzword.
But story selling is probably a different definition of narrative. In this case I would say company culture, or more specifically community standards applied to the non-employee members of the company (aka creators). Every ad supported platform will design their standards to, at a minimum, sell ads. They all push this very hard. No disagreement here that companies primarily want money.
It really does affect what you say- which affects how you think about things. It can take you from "there is something bad that needs to be discussed and fixed" to "we have to treat almost everything as equally acceptable", or it can take you to "I really need to go as hard in one direction as possible, because that's what sells" - it depends on what works for the platform.
Content is product and every business will control the quality of their product. I don't think that part is controversial. But the carrot and stick methods used to control quality messes with peoples heads, and it's done on purpose. "To sell ads" is still a purpose.
Any account and its related business can be deleted or hacked in an instant, with no recourse whatsoever. People are under a lot of pressure.
But anyways, the more relevant rant here is that you don't own anything you post publicly to any social media platform, and we've all known that for a long time. I think it was maybe 15 years ago people were mad that Facebook updated their TOS to retroactively give themselves the right to use any previously posted photos in ads. Maybe 10 years ago people were mad because Google decided they could read your emails (and also that they owned the content of those emails). Was it 5 years ago everyone was mad when they found out that secret voice recordings from digital assistants were being handed over to 3rd parties to train voice recognition algorithms? That seems like a pretty close analog to selling off posts to trail AI. But who knows the timelines anymore. It's all become a mush and these things have gotten hard to look up.
Reddit might stop temporarily, and then they'll start doing it again when everybody stops caring. Old hat.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram