"...allowing Big Tech to be the arbiter of truth."Absolutely. As I see it, one of the single biggest problems with the internet has ALWAYS been that users always have had to go through third parties—hosting sites—to gain access to the internet.
Essentially, for the vast majority, the internet does not and cannot provide unfettered access to the internet in the way that a city's Public Commons would have done in years past. The fact is that the technical infrastructure for users to bypass ISPs, social media etc. just does not exist to the extent that would allow millions to do so. As users have no guaranteed [legislated] right to access the internet's Public Commons, they're always going to be at the mercy or discretion of the party who allows them access.
As we've seen in recent days, this is a terrible state of affairs for users, as it clearly demonstrates how the owners of these access points have ultimate control over access to the internet. The fact that the US president has been censored on the whim of a gatekeeper's CEO amply demonstrates the fact. This is an intolerable* situation and ultimately it has to be rectified if we are to have a free and open internet.
Of course, governments love this situation because channeling users through common access points such as ISPs allow them to more effectively monitor and control internet traffic.
_
* Please note, I'm not describing this situation as intolerable because I'm a supporter of President Trump. The fact is that I'm not a Trump supporter but my position is more along the line commonly but wrongfully attributed to Voltaire which is that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
As far as I'm concerned, President Trump unreservedly has the right to say whatever he wishes to without being censored on a whim by some corporate body (or a bureaucratic gnome therein)—that is unless such comment is outright unlawful (which, in Trump's case, has yet to be determined—and only a court of law can ultimately adjudicate on said matter)!
In my opinion, Trump's behavior has been obnoxious in the extreme but banning what he says is not the answer (especially so given that he's still an elected official—none less than the US President).
Moreover, I believe that no matter how bad, antisocial or outright mad some of these internet cretins are (and I reckon there are many that fit that mold), it is better to know who they are and what they think than to have them and their thoughts go underground—where, in all likelihood, they'll likely fester and become even more dangerous and virulent.
The internet censorship we've seen in recent days is the most prominent example of what the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and others have been doing for quite some time. That matters have ramped up to censoring the US President may bring the matter to a head and that ultimately we'll see laws enacted that will put limits on these corporate bullies.
(Ultimately, the whole problem boils down to the fact that democracies haven't yet established at law any effective and or reliable methods or protocols to single out what should be censored and what should not—or for that matter, what internet users can actually discuss and or look at online without attracting the attention or ire of government and security services. [It seems to me that only online content that's deemed illegal at law ought to be subject to censorship—nothing else.]
The fact that governments haven't so acted is now proving to be very troubling, and until it's resolved at law the problem with Big Tech will persist.)