I think the distinction here is not about limiting corporations but about basic human issue of freedom (more specifically of "feeling of freedom"; unlimited fre

I think the distinction here is not about limiting corporations but about basic human issue of freedom (more specifically of "feeling of freedom"; unlimited freedom is out of reach even for the richest/most powerful humans). As official media are losing their raison d'être, i.e. medial control of population due to alternatives provided by self-inhibited freedom on the Internet, allowing all kinds of ridiculous information to pop up, the usual approach is to inhibit access to unapproved information sources, reinforcing the feeling of having one's freedom attacked via censorship. Word of mouth was always ridiculous, a sewer with a few pearls here and there, it was always there though... Obviously, corporations in favor of "feeling of freedom" would lose a lot where it matters, in popularity. To me it seems like the quality of "story tellers", conjuring believable lies as was the case in the past, went dramatically down and population overcame that paradigm and can't be fooled with them anymore. Trying to shove population back to ancient approaches won't work; new, smarter stories need to be invented for people to believe in. Anyone up to the task?