I was recently shadow-silenced on a platform under the assumption that it was to "protect the community." What is the community?

On the vast majority of social media platforms, the community is 1) a collection of people generating "content": photographs, video/audio, and/or textual information without compensation for the purpose of generating 2) interactions with an audience which gain content momentum to be finally delivered to 3) a set of passive eyes that see said content, but more importantly see the advertising surrounding said content.

Most social media platforms have no incentive to "protect" anyone other than the systems which generate them revenue, which might end up looking like silencing anyone who says they don't like the carousel.

To see businesses using the language of "pluralism", inclusivity, tolerance and fairness to effectively silence any dissension which does not agree with their prerogative of making money does nots seem far off from cultural repression on the grounds of silencing intellectual dissension.

What does increasing surveillance to unknowable standards of obedience look like in terms of shaping the general public psyche? Do we not have enough trouble with actually teaching people how to be free thinkers?

I would posit that most social media platforms do not seriously care about providing a "platform for expression" as much as they care about getting people to post great and engaging content for $FREE - as much as they care about getting FREE and/or CHEAP entertainment from hopeful and talented people to keep their ad revenue churning.

My offending comment was a criticism of a "doctor"'s weightlifting form; it is my assumption at this point that 98% of the gym-rat types you see on the internet are people LARPing as athletes and, shit, maybe anyone who's using "Dr." in their public title ought to be held to incredibly high standards when disseminating advice regarding how to live "healthfully".