I don't interpret you as saying we should choose platforms without user control. I interpreted you as trying to coerce existing platforms with tyrannical owners into giving up some of their control to their users. It sounds to me like the idea of people growing a spine and leaving these platforms is so upsetting to you that you would rather put enormous effort into plugging up every new and creative way that these shitty platforms can come up with to continue screwing over theur users. Is any of this accurate?

When you said that we should "campaign" for these rights I got the strong impression that you meant that you believed governments should be involved. I suppose it's possible that someone could "campaign" for a private actor to do something, and it's possible that you don't see the same danger I see in asking the government for anything, but that's not the impression I got. The impression I got is that you want the government to "create" rights for us. My impression is that you have a very low view of individual choice as a force for solving problems and improving society, and my impression is that you don't particularly care about how dangerous petitioning the government might be, nor do you particularly mind or disagree with the narrative that we would have only succeeded because of government intervention. Is any of my intuition wrong? How would you phrase your position?