It's also that those in power would love it for their opinions to be the "authoritative" ones and only ones permitted to be heard. Same for mainstream media (though for them it's their business model).
The internet allows the "unwashed masses" to voice their opinions and viewpoints too. And of course those higher up will always have a distaste for those opinions.
Imagine everybody being able to criticize the Vietnam War in the sixties, or e.g. segregation in the 40s, or prohibition in the 20s, or the war on drugs in the 80s, or McCarthyism, on a platform that could get equal eyeballs as the Time or TIME LIFE or NYT. All those critiques would be discarded as "fake news", "propaganda" and so on too (in fact whatever little was, e.g. in underground papers and so on, got exactly those labels).
Of course people would also be able to voice their support those things, but that we be business as usual. People touting the elite's opinions were never without a soapbox in the mainstream media. The revolution is in the ability of the "unwashed masses" to speak for themselves.