... and everybody will just think it's normal for "StackOverflow, Reddit, Github, Twitter" to sell access to content that other people created and own... If so

... and everybody will just think it's normal for "StackOverflow, Reddit, Github, Twitter" to sell access to content that other people created and own... If something is truly proprietary, then the compensation should go to its owner, not to some random Git server operator or whatever. And the owner, not the server operator, should be setting the price and terms. If the server needs to make money, it can charge for the basic service itself. On the other hand, if somebody created something to give it away, on a platform that at that time provided a channel effective for giving things away and advertised itself as suitable for giving things away, then the platform changing the rules midstream is morally piracy of that person's work. Probably a very large fraction of the material on those platforms would never have been put there in the first place if the actual owners had expected random restrictions and arbitrary access charges. If they want to radically rewrite the rules like that, then they need to not sell access to any preexisting content unless the original creator explicitly opts in. But we had Reddit, for instance, actively reinstating posts that had been mass-deleted by their authors specifically to prevent that kind of abuse.