While the specific case in Myanmar is the subject of the article above, I think the interest in the topic is not due to us all being very involved in that conflict. (Excluding those who are infact involved in that conflict and reading HN)

Certain industries are natural monopolies. The winners win more. When a certain corporation gains too much power in a very important industry, the society at large becomes uncomfortable with the amount of power unelected employees at that company begins to have. The result is that companies within certain sectors becomes subject to certain laws, or are made public sector.

For example, most countries have made the road-keeping-and-making industry almost completely public sector. This means a private company can't just ban certain pedestrians or drivers from accessing the road.

Because road-keeping-and-making is a natural monopoly, and is very important to society.

Now, social media is very important to society, and it is also a natural monopoly. Youtube will not be outdone by a competitor, neither will Facebook, neither will Google. (Notice Alphabet Inc. owns two of those) It only follows that these companies should become subject to new laws that prohibit them from exercising their power over society, after all, they are not elected officials.

But something doesn't work. What country will decide the policy of Facebook? The US? Then why should the US decide the social media sector policy of Myanmar. .Which naturally follows if they control the policy of Facebook. Social media, the internet and it's mega-corporations are either in a very good spot right now, or in a very bad spot, depending on how you view it.

And I see no good solution. Certainly, if things keep going the way they are in the west, this trajectory of political censorship will probably lead to real conflict, like in Myanmar.