First you say that “monopoly isn’t important” and then go on to claim: The 20th century concept of "monopoly" is entirely insufficient. This is the underlying

First you say that “monopoly isn’t important” and then go on to claim: The 20th century concept of "monopoly" is entirely insufficient. This is the underlying cause of the pseudo-paradox. Now first of all your last point is conflating the right to express yourself with the right to make a career on someone’s platform expressing yourself. Controlling monetization+virality/discovery is too potent a combination to let a single entity control for censorship purposes. As far as the need for network effects to be classified as monopolistic, I disagree It's hard to convince someone of a fact, if their bread and butter depend on their not acknowledging it. As it stands no one is stopping you from attempting to do so, and no one owes it to you either. If a bunch of people want to hear, and others are blocking, then the right to Free Speech is being abrogated. If people want to pay, and others are artificially blocking, then the right to Free Speech is also being abrogated.