In the Anglosphere, it feels that many of our institutions have been captured by activists. A small minority who push an agenda and are able to silence (consciously or subconsciously) mainstream thinking.
Tyranny of the minority. It's all over society, not just in politics. A group with a small but strong preference for a choice will force the masses into that choice, even if it's worse for the majority. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
Examples: you're not allowed peanuts on a plane if someone has an allergy; almost all meat on sale is halal etc.
"It's okay when we do it" is so rampant on political forums. They instinctively react against anyone bringing up 'Whataboutisms' and 'slippery slope', like they are taboo arguments.
People are far too willing to take significant risks just to get emotional gratification and appease their own outrage. Usually it's delivered with a blind trust in the system (the sort of trust you'd normally never hear re the police), that it will somehow be used mostly for good, the scope won't expand indefinitely, and the false positives are just a cost of doing business.
The far left "progressive" movement does have control over and the ears of a lot of these large corps. They are probably less than 10% but are great at organizing. Yet one more reason to split up the megacorps in silicon valley, some other regions and more moderate parts of the US can gain some traction. This is coming from a progressive, but a progressive who also balks at controlling free speech when it isn't calling for specific violence. I also support the right of corps to kick hatemongers off their platform.
Examples: you're not allowed peanuts on a plane if someone has an allergy; almost all meat on sale is halal etc.