Iain McGilchrist has written a 3 volume tome that effectively and scientifically counters the current trend of left-brain dominance.

You cannot divorce science from philosophy. The hole created will fill with market currency.

Well "roids will do that. It's too easy.

I'm not stating any preference, but the US supreme court is getting ready to hear all about democratized information and whether it will be allowed or not.

The EU is also considering a clamp-down.

Agree. Somewhere else in this thread I tried to say that. "Gatekeepers today are as craven as any Youtuber, just with different chains of command" or some such.

Yes. I don't. Poorly phrased. As an Anarcho-Stoic I should have said "Is this improvement or chaos" or...still needs work. Im not a scholar.

You have to imagine in the past before resource scarcity and with high standards in humanities education - that there was more "honor" throughout society, including the editors of information. Gatekeepers now are as craven as any youtuber in mom's basement, just different chains of command.

If the audience or readers can find the strength to be more discerning and take responsibility for choosing their information, I'd say let it ALL flow.

"the choice to cover a story and what parts of the story to cover are always going to be a reflection of values."

This was always the highest power of the press. In the recent past, the choice to ignore a story, if agreed to by 3 or 4 press entities, meant the story was relatively "secret". The difference now is with the democratization of information.
So now people have a comparison with which to judge the choices made by any given dissemination, and to apply their own value system to the relative importance of any fact or story, and to judge other value systems in that realm.

Is this improvement or anarchy? Will this be permitted to continue?

I've never seen this explained. Is there a name for it?

Same. It's been a lifelong mystery that I mostly dealt with by not fighting it too hard.
But what you sacrifice is things like writing a book or other solo creative situation.

I think humans bond in pairs because of this tendency. One's "partner" will probably not be that similar to you. So their influence, coming from outside your stagnant-fishbowl-thinking will create some imperatives. "Imperatives" is what the lone person lacks. Being free of outside forces truly creates stagnation. Doing things you don't want to do (you THINK you don't want to do) leads to new landscapes with more intrigue.
If for some reason a "partner" is not gonna happen, you can still give yourself up to an outside force (person or situation) that sets expectations for you, and from there you can't help but stumble upon new choices.