Michael Snyder has a nice piece that's been republished at Zerohedge: When Corporations Become More Powerful Than The Government, Our Definition Of "Big Brother" Needs To Change. He's working off a op-ed at Newsweek by Orin Hatch, Reining in the Techno-Oligarchy. Both are worth looking at, if only to solidify your perspective on the state of the public square. While neither Snyder nor Hatch quite explicitly state that Big Business is pushing a specific ideology, it's implicit in the singling out of conservative voices for canceling. Thus, when Big Business becomes Big Brother what happens is that they acquire the power to advance a well defined ideological agenda, but without the nuisance of having to be elected.
The problem is that most politicians see no incentive to rein in our corporate overlords. On the Left, politicians and big business are ideological allies. On the right, in order to get elected it's easier to scramble for crumbs under the corporate table than to spend most waking hours grubbing for small donor contributions. The politicians are owned by big business and, for most, it's a relationship that works. For them--not for America, and not for We The People with opinions, in particular.
Here's a brief excerpt from Snyder, which includes a quote from Hatch as well:
Anecdotally, from acquaintances who are familiar with the corporate world, this is very much the case. And, as commenter aNanyMouse has been pointing out today, there's no need to go looking for trouble on the job--the human resources people will come looking for you, to make sure you're not guilty of WrongThink. And, of course, under the guise of diversity training, this is also very much true in all government employment. Snyder is not exaggerating when he says the conservatives will be lucky to obtain simply menial employment.
Orin Hatch's solution is, from a legal and constitutional perspective, rather vague. His idea is to require private companies to conform to the First Amendment, but the whole point of the First Amendment is that it only applies to government:
If these companies want to base their business models on providing digital access to the public square, then they should have to abide by the well-established standards regulating free speech in the public square. Insofar as they conform to First Amendment standards in their terms of service, these companies should continue to enjoy immunity from civil liability under a revised section 230. But if they want to go beyond the First Amendment and prohibit forms of speech protected by the First Amendment, they should be liable just like any publisher who engages in content moderation (which is really content discrimination).
I'm sure there are ways to accomplish this. The big problem is getting the politicians to actually act and, as was already stated, it will be a tough job to get a sufficient number interested in reform. This is, perhaps, an area that could call for a constitutional amendment.