1. Due to network effects, there's an argument that some types of online services are natural monopolies [0], and should be regulated the way we do for electric

1. Due to network effects, there's an argument that some types of online services are natural monopolies [0], and should be regulated the way we do for electricity, water, etc. There are reasonable arguments against such regulation (in any domain); but it's potentially within the purview of the state to set "rules of the road" for the market, which in this context could mean digital due process, algorithmic transparency, interoperability, etc. 2. While I don't disregard Barry Goldwater's argument against the Civil Rights Act [1], the fact is that right now we do actively interfere in the marketplace to mandate transactions not be constrained by "protected categories": race/gender/creed/etc. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to proactively extend this protection to include political alignments or even epistemic opinions. (One of the things I find most curious about CRA, is that while most of its categories are "immutable characteristics", one's faith is more a matter of choice than genetics. If I claimed my religion was "I worship $POLITICAL_PARTY", would it then be protected? What is the scope of what defines a "faith"? In a neighboring FB banning instance [2], Lincoln Cannon even describes how his inciting post advocating decentralization derives from his Mormon beliefs.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1964/06/19/archives/text-of-goldwater-speech-on-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/1964/06/19/archives/text-of-goldwate... [2] https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2021/01/facebook-disabled-my-account-after-i-criticized-them.html https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2021/01/facebook-disabled-my-...