I don’t see what the argument is that the marketplace of ideas isn’t working. Facebook doesn’t prevent you from using Twitter, or Reddit or a small new network

I don’t see what the argument is that the marketplace of ideas isn’t working. Facebook doesn’t prevent you from using Twitter, or Reddit or a small new network. All kinds of people can and do engage with multiple networks, big and small, at their own inclination. All of the platforms are accessed on the same internet using the same protocols and clients, and it’s trivial — completely trivial — to find alternate content or all kinds (at least in the US). People aren’t abandoning the big platforms in droves because they generally like those big platforms. (Probably almost nobody thinks they are great, but that’s not the standard. The standard is better than the alternatives.) As the article points out, the marketplace of ideas is leading Twitter to more flexible moderation mechanisms that let users choose their own level. Seems crazy to change the rules, force companies to break their business models, when the system is working fine. Doctorow (and others) may not like it, but many, many people like Facebook and Twitter a lot more than they dislike them. Protective regulation should come into play when the affected populace is not in any position to consent to (or decline) the situation. E.g., because alternatives aren’t available, or because the issue requires special expertise to understand, etc. But generally this doesn’t apply here. (I do think there needs to be recourse for people who are banned or otherwise lose access to something they’ve invested in.)