Nothing to see here, just platforms naturally developing under capitalism.
Just like the development of any other industry their purpose gently transforms into maximizing shareholder value and not to provide equal value to the consumer, this, contrary to a superficial analysis, does not contradict the existence of the industry itself.
Because in order to contradict the industry there must be an equal amount of power on both sides (of consumer and supplier) which we would use to prevent the use value drop to us. But that's the thing with capitalism: they own the far reaching platforms themselves, the live at the forefront of capabilities. So where is power left?
Any resistance must occur "underground" where there is usually very little exposition.
This is akin to wanting powertool manufacturers to standardize some battery interfaces. While it may be convenient to us, they have no incentive to do that and we have no power to force them besides boycott, which in a world with millions of people with millions of needs, is impractical unless you have mass media support, which is in itself almost an impossibility.
This will happen to any popular platform that maximizes profits; this happens to every popular platform with private ownership where private owners are (legally/existentially) incentivized to maximize profits.
This cannot happen in popular platforms whose aims are not maximizing profits; this cannot happen in popular platforms that have no individual owner. But a time where this is feasible has not arrived yet. I think a good example of this is standards, which can allow individuals to get rich, but not an individual. This can be leveraged even more to prevent mass users to suffer from capitalizing of the ones with capital.