Ultimately what he says remains true: private companies aren't compelled to let somebody use their services. This makes it all the more important, in my opinion

Ultimately what he says remains true: private companies aren't compelled to let somebody use their services. This makes it all the more important, in my opinion, not necessarily to keep trying to reform or care about how private companies handle various things, but rather for public institutions (those under public control, roughly speaking), to continue to provide a public, non-internet way to engage with those institutions. For example, a lot of local governments now, you get the sense they won't pay attention to you unless you go (or threaten to go) on Twitter. So at that point having a Twitter account is a prerequisite for democracy a little bit. I mean Twitter's fine and all, but what if you run afoul of their terms of service somehow, or what if they simply invoke their right to refuse service to anyone? Neither of those has anything to do with your rights as a citizen, and shouldn't affect them.