What you say is true of actual, physical resources but not of things like Wikipedia content or computer code, which is what I was talking about in my previous c

What you say is true of actual, physical resources but not of things like Wikipedia content or computer code, which is what I was talking about in my previous comment. These things "belong to society" by nature, so to say; whereas "state sponsorship" itself is the only factor that can create "ownership" in them out of thin air. Note that since these are not resources in the sense of "something that's subject to scarcity and competing allocation needs", "decisions about allocating resources" simply don't matter here! (Monopoly platforms are in kind of an intermediate position where what we want to avoid is simply for "the decision to allocate these resources" to be subject to the sorts of favoritism, opportunistic behavior and inefficiency that tend to come with monopolized private ownership. In practice, this is a weird case where public ownership turns out to work quite well; especially if the monopolization can be efficiently kept to a very local level, so that users are still incented to "vote with their feet" for the very best provider. All in all, it's not that different from capitalistic provision while avoiding some really obvious pitfalls of entirely-private models.)