If you're talking about some voices being privileged over others in social media, I think that X, formerly Twitter, is a great example of that. After Elon Musk purchased Twitter, many Ukrainian influencers reported that they saw a significant decrease in their reach and the impression of their posts. For months, they wondered whether this was just something they were imagining, and then it seemed as if the algorithm was revealed to actually penalize posts that mentioned Ukraine. However, it's been a while since I wrote an article about this, so I've forgotten some of the specific examples here. However, we do know, for example, that Musk did, at one point, boost his own posts over others, and we do know that at this point there is almost no real accountability at X, so it's conceivable that in the future Ukrainian content could be politically marginalized.
Now, on what the solution is, that's a very complicated question, and one that I am not qualified to answer, but intuitively I would trend towards ensuring that social media companies have a kind of widely distributed ownership between a large number of shareholders. If you have private ownership and power is concentrated with one individual or one family, then there is a complete lack of accountability, versus when you are accountable to a large number of shareholders and there is less opportunity for abuse.