Now this is where things get interesting. There's a decent argument to be made that internet communication is becoming dominated by a handful of platforms. Ther

Now this is where things get interesting. There's a decent argument to be made that internet communication is becoming dominated by a handful of platforms. There may be a point at which you are practically unable to speak on the internet if a half-dozen Silicon Valley companies do not like your opinion. I do not say that we are at this point yet. It is a possible and visible future, though. I think we can consider how we would determine when that domination of internet discussion constitutes a monopoly, and what should be done about it in that case. We don't allow companies that are monopolies in critical industries to do as they please, in many areas and for many reasons. If there is effectively widespread censorship of speech, who elected Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, et all to be the deciders of what gets censored and what does not? If the ability or potential for that is out there, shouldn't it be the democratically elected government that determines what does and does not get censored and not a cabal of private corporations?