That's called a false equivalence. And this is not a "theory" its facts on the ground.

People have spoken with their actions. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Instagram, Apple etc etc continue to grow, prosper and not be subject to any major criticism whilst still happily removing content.

That's thanks to walled-gardens, advertising, and a lack of the average user's ability to use adequate replacement services. Quite frankly it's not likely for the average user to learn about DuckDuckGo, MillionShort, or Exalead. We're starting to see some small pushback against Alphabet's YouTube, but there aren't that many places that will ever have a viable alternative. Dailymotion's the closest - but they're not all that close.

Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are too tightly controlled, but the very few alternatives are primarily grassroots efforts with small communities who are genuinely scared of being forced to shut down by server providers with an agenda - so they keep as much data as possible encrypted and only bring people in by invitation. Not to mention, a social network lives or dies on the users themselves - and frankly speaking, the average grandma isn't going have an easy time going on Gab to look at pictures of her grandkids. Many can deal with Instagram or Facebook.

So no, people have not spoken with their inaction. They have been led to believe that this is all there is. They have been given an ever-shrinking Web that is a complete disappointment compared to the openness and opportunity of the 1990s.