> If a company becomes a public platform important for the public discourse or for the function of journalism, regulation and laws can limit what a company can

> If a company becomes a public platform important for the public discourse or for the function of journalism, regulation and laws can limit what a company can do. Only if there are good arguments for this to be necessary. You didn't mention any. Just being "big" is no reason to get rid of the "free market". Are they abusing their market dominance? Is this a natural monopoly? Are strong network effects in play, as with Facebook? The best argument for a market failure I can think of is high initial investment. Yeah, I'm not convinced gov needs to write rules for Cloudflare specifically. > With the announcmenet they are causing the political discourse after the massacre to be about free speech As it should. Simplified, slaughtering = hate guns*. There is no way to get rid of guns in the US any time soon, so most talk about it is a wasted opportunity cost. The hateful and divisive rhetoric, on the other hand, seems to be sharply on the rise, with even the president making it permissible and using it to his one's ends. This seems like a way more promising attempt to stop the probably upcoming civil war.