Rather than open up free speech, has the "internet" just created a new dominant narrative?

Here's a strange irony. What if the "internet" has not facilitated "free speech" but has instead created a new type of narrative? Women complaining about the roles they are expected meeting on line and finding other people think the same. But woah a sec. They disagree with the dominant narrative, but then are afraid of their individuality so run into the arms of a new collective narrative of people who agree with them. Surely if everyone disagrees with the dominant narrative and agrees with the online narrative then you just have a new dominant narrative? Wasn't individuality the observation that we are all different so disagree with everyone and everything? Why this desire to share agreement and solidarity? We actually don't like individuality, we don't like freedom, we like to be buried in a nameless and faceless herd. So why do we dislike the comfort of the dominant narrative? Isn't it because the "internet" is a machine that has *created* a new narrative that is not the familiar dominant narrative but we don't know what it is. Confused we think cos its not the "dominant" then it must be personal and particular, This is the narrative for "me." You see this with the advent of "conspiracy" theory, such people think this broad, badly thought out narratives are somehow talking to "them" precisely because they are alternative to the "dominant" narrative and the MSM. But as I point out to them just because they are alternative doesn't make them any less dominant. Now what if people don't have their own ideas at all and just absorb the tribal mythos? In fact the machine that is the "internet" has just created out of no where a counter culture. No brains or people involved anywhere, it is just a result of a new mechanism of information. What I see for sure is no thought, and no individuality at all in any of these off-the-shelf narratives.