Detailed web event telemetry is where I have seen the "biggest" data, not application-generated data. Orders, customers, products will always be within reasonable limits. Generating 100s of events (and their associated properties) for every single page/app view to track impressions, clicks, scrolls, page-quality measurements can get you to billions of rows and TBs of data pretty quickly for a moderately popular site. Convincing technical leaders to delete old, unused data has been difficult; convincing product owners to instrument fewer events is even harder.
My idea is for everyone to have their own personal website/app/space (could be very basic, prebuilt templates, drag and drop, something your grandparents could set up). That would then lead to the development of social networking protocols or being able to subscribe to web content modules. Basically, I want RSS feeds for web components/modules, but then a personal portal to interact with the items i subscribe to.
I, as userA, with site www.squarespace.com/userA, could subscribe to all or part of userB's site www.wix.com/userB or www.userB.com/photos but not www.userB.com/crazyBlog. Then, on your own site/app, you choose the things you are subscribed to that you want to "re-publish" or add comments to or share. userB could also choose to not let you follow their space.
This decentralizes away from any particular company and should limit the unintentional crazy that is broadcast across current platforms.
I think email might be a good system to model this on. In addition to an inbox, almost all providers provide a Spam folder, and others like Gmail separate items into 'Promotions' and 'Social' folders/labels. I imagine almost nobody objects to this.
Why can't social media follow a similar methodology? There is no requirement that FB/Twitter/Insta/etc feeds be a single "unit". The primary experience would be a main feed (uncontroversial), but additional feeds/labels would be available to view platform-labeled content. A "Spam Feed" and a "Controversial Feed" and a "This Might Be Misinformation Feed".
Rather than censoring content, it segregates it. Users are free to seek/view that content, but must implicitly acknowledge the platform's opinion by clicking into that content. Just like you know you are looking at "something else" when you go to your email Spam folder, you would be aware that you are venturing off the beaten path when going to the "Potential State-Sponsored Propaganda Feed". There must be some implicit trust in a singular feed which is why current removal/censorship schemas cause such "passionate" responses.