>> The tension is that although it is indeed their platform, the function it plays in society is similar to a public broadcast channel. IMO, a good analogy is t

>> The tension is that although it is indeed their platform, the function it plays in society is similar to a public broadcast channel. IMO, a good analogy is the broadcast radio spectrum. > This analogy clearly doesn't hold up. It's more like a very successful private broadcast channel, but where making an effective public broadcast channel is too difficult for the government, so we pretend that the private channel is "like a public channel". I think the analogy does hold up. Society limits private property rights all the time for the public good, and that's a good thing. For instance my private property has drainage and utility easements that allow others to use to for the public good. I don't even own all the property in the area. Theoretically I could go all "muh private property" and demand the government spend a bunch of money to divert water around my land and remove the easement, but that would be silly and wasteful. Right not we're in a situation where a too few companies control too much of the internet mass media landscape. If that's not remedied with something like antitrust breakups, some kind of "social media access easement" legal framework may be worth looking at.