I thought the same, but it makes sense, if you go past the strange grammar structure and pompous words.
My liberal translation:
It's crazy that companies try to scale workforce like you scale compute units in the cloud. This wouldn't be the same if the workforce organized itself in unions, both against the platform and the moral police.
If arguing that everyone on these platforms would be judged in front of everyone else, maybe a legal framework dictating what people can and cannot do is the way to go (I think it sarcastically implies that the "everything which is not forbidden is allowed" principle would be violated).
Edit: it's very complex to describe what unacceptable content is. This will cause many cases of indecency accusations, which will turn the public against them, leaving no freedom of media per se.
My liberal translation:
It's crazy that companies try to scale workforce like you scale compute units in the cloud. This wouldn't be the same if the workforce organized itself in unions, both against the platform and the moral police.
If arguing that everyone on these platforms would be judged in front of everyone else, maybe a legal framework dictating what people can and cannot do is the way to go (I think it sarcastically implies that the "everything which is not forbidden is allowed" principle would be violated).
Edit: it's very complex to describe what unacceptable content is. This will cause many cases of indecency accusations, which will turn the public against them, leaving no freedom of media per se.