The possibilities of targeting messaging via fb, youtube, twitter ad budgets go far beyond the freedom of speech the authors of the constitution had in mind, no

The possibilities of targeting messaging via fb, youtube, twitter ad budgets go far beyond the freedom of speech the authors of the constitution had in mind, no? The ability to address a snug fit tailored messaging to specific audiences is a completely new level of "talking". It subverts the traditional democratic communication, where all participants realistically had a comparable and diverse data/information set. In contrast, given sufficient targeting advertisement budget, you can very deliberately dissimimate messages which shift the electorates decisions just enough that you get the political climate and outcome you want. That's no longer the free speech of the constitution. That's mass manipulation. Brain hacking it was called elsewhere in the discussion. What can yt, twitter, fb do? Banning certain content feels bad, but how can they nudge us with the tweets, videos and posts that challenge us a little, like the old news stand always carried the paper we normally wouldn't read. Until we did, once in a while. And of course the paper was not 95% letters to the editor, unredacted. How can the fb, google ai help us to structure the flood of information in a more nuanced way? Instead of a plump ban? Until then, I reluctantly take the ban.