> The power to swing elections being bestowed on a small group of unelected, unaccountable people is the concern. Any power they have is given freely of their

> The power to swing elections being bestowed on a small group of unelected, unaccountable people is the concern. Any power they have is given freely of their own volition, nobody is compelled to use Facebook. People who rely on Facebook to stay informed about the world are responsible for their own choices, the same way someone who chooses to rely on Fox News or MSNBC is freely making their own choices. > It's not valid to compare vetting by the social media oligopoly with legacy media curation Yes it is. The issue in question is an organization's power to influence elections by controlling information that consumer's receive, in this respect, legacy media curation is identical to social media curation. > Social media companies are like the new public commons through which the plurality of conversation and debate flows through nowadays Privately owned websites aren't a public commons, the internet is a public commons and citizens have total freedom to come and go as they please or even carve out their own slice of the commons for whatever purpose they desire. There is no reason to wrest control of business prerogatives from private website owners just because lots of people share political memes on a website. If this issue is a real concern then the government should provide a 1st amendment protected platform for citizens not arbitrarily violate the free-speech rights of private companies. > It's not practically possible to opt-out unless you want to exclude yourself from public discourse Totally false. There are hundreds of different platforms to choose from to participate in public discourse online and its very cheap and quite common to self-host one's own blog or platform to that end.