Unlikely. The information democratisation genie isn't going back in the Internet bottle...
Apparently (or so claims the left wing press) Peter Thiel and Aron D’Souzaguy are launching a boutique tool for rich people to whine about opinions which they don't like because freedom of the press is a bit too progressive.
Apart from the fact that it's just prima facie infantile: Good luck to them with that. They're going to need it.
Aron D’Souzaguy founded the enhanced games. Not unethical in and of itself, but I doubt either he or Thiel have the kind of psychological self-awareness (or else concern about what they're aware of) required to notice that it's an inherently artificial and 'inauthentic' approach to entrepreneurship. The Dark Triad is well known to be correlated with extraversion, dominance, and assertiveness traits.
Per marketing psychology (which I am sure Thiel has plenty of) -- and general psychology -- people are going to make the requisite, natural associations regarding the kind of social-dominance and high nPwr (need for power) attitudes underpinning such efforts (on the basis of evolved psychological mechanisms), and they don't need to be socialists (nor psychologists) to intuitively do so.
Moreover, people don't have to be professional philosophers, logicians, psychologists, or ethicists to know that narrative construction and repetition have always been used to present alternative truths, and to make misinformation look like facts. (Theist, fideist religions have been doing so for a long time).
Thoroughly controlling the narrative doesn't deliver truth and facts. It delivers a controlled narrative with a narrow epistemic bandwidth.
Multiple countermanding, countervailing, and competing narratives will always be better than one monotonic and unchallenged narrative, if for no other reason than people will have their awareness of alternative considerations raised (rather than the opposite) and have to think about the issues (rather than the alternative.)
Here's a principle off the top of my head: Momentary multi-narrative confusion is epistemically and socially safer than unconfused single narrative certainty for human psychologies. Or: Some multiple narrative uncertainty is safer than all single narrative certainty. (This is nothing new.)
A tool designed to knock all narratives but one out of existence is inherently ethically, intellectually, and informationally unreliable.
Did I mention that getting so pouty and precious about the existence of narratives that one doesn't like is giant-babyish in the extreme? There are plenty of narratives which I think should bee curbed and opposed, and even classified as inherently dangerous because they're conducive to nothing but human suffering, but I am not about to try to delete the arguments or opinions of someone saying otherwise. (I'll jolly well oppose them with a philosophical/logical/ethical/scientific argument and reasoning, however.)
There are, and will be, plenty of tools to nullify the effect of such tools as objection.AI, including both big AI models and smaller private tools (like Google's Gemma) that people can deploy to nullify the effects of such an effort. Moreover, I have noted before that industrialists like Elon and Trump - when talking about The People - are often only interested in their own conception and definition of who qualifies as 'The People', and that this is not only transparently silly and easy for even a child to see: it's readily and automatically undone by public information democratisation tools like Musk's acquisition X. That's even with the algorithms stacked.
The way it stands at the moment, although algorithmic suppression is real and AI will exacerbate it, there's only so much of it that a social media-linked system can enforce before it become obviously not fit for original stated democratising purpose, and therefore becomes a obvious echo-chambered, triple-filter-bubbled parody of itself.
Triple filter bubbles and echo chambers notwithstanding, the information democratisation genie is out of the Internet bottle and with AI also significantly democratised, it's not going back in without Iranian-IRGC-level interventions. Of course if that happens, both the West and The American projects of manifest destiny, liberty, and individual freedom are finished anyway.
