Tech-Lash will in the first place return to bite the tech giants who started it. Not an immediate threat from the end-user consumer but from sharks in the game of power - nations state ruling cliques, who see the move as a threat to their own supremacy. https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/11/the-global-consequences-of-the-tech-lash-will-be-severe/

In US the tech monopolies made the move both as virtue signalling in the face of threatened "break-up" by the neo-Bolsheviks, as well as an opportunity to settle scores business wise where the newly established regime would hopefully not intervene given the virtue signalling.

But this mutually convenient move by tech monopolies and neo-Bolsheviks was a US domestic playact that is correctly being read wrong outside the US: which kind of is reassuring in that the US grasp of global sentiments remains as delusional and parochial as always.

For quite some time other regions of the world hv been quietly isolating their tech spheres away from US control, and been increasingly successful in doing so: given US's own whine about how successful apparently is the hacking of its society and politics now done from outside.

In short the first negative consequence for US tech giants will be their increasing isolation and perhaps a decline outside USA that will not be immediately apparent, but will happen over time as states start seriously investing in cultivating their own capacities in the sphere.

Second is a reaction that will become felt within the USA - stemming from the seemingly concerted political action rather openly by an assortment of entities not having a great historical reputation of ethical or moral compass - suddenly acting super virtuous.

People who feel betrayed by a system have a way of bypassing curbs on their chatter put in by the system - they will probably have to work harder now but the bitterness that will drive them will be hard to match. The tech monopolies will never again be trusted.

State owned social media is not a great idea, for state power and big corporates in a non-wartime society are essentially both led by psychopaths. Their rivalry is sibling rivalry - and a state regime will constantly seek to eliminate voices it sees as threatening.

what the middle way compromise can be is popular pressure to install frameworks and protections under which social media private or public-private partnerships must work: with verifiable independent watchdogs, and protection of rights of citizen to express their opinions.

as well as imposition of decentralization and compulsory anti-monopoly legislation. This is inseparable from the social and political discourse on the supreme importance of free speech and removing powers to obstruct free speech.

an idea or opinion can be abhorrent, but it must be allowed to be aired, and equally any criticism of that idea must also be allowed to be aired, and neither shd be threatened with physical violence whether by state or groups:

this removes self appointed middlemen in ideological confrontations who are simply there for their own self-interests, and without whose protection and whitewash, many of the really harmful and obnoxious ideas would wither away in open competition.

I think tech monopolies have in their zeal made a big error of judgment, and on the whole this will stimulate several corrective actions - all in the right direction, and to the cutting down to size of what shd hv been pruned a long time ago.