> we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government inter

> we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted I think that's basically the GP's point. It's only "become apparent" now that there is a big tech company that doesn't toe the mainstream line. This (gatekeeping / censorship) was always a big problem with big tech, especially twitter, but the "it's a private company, if someone doesn't like it they can build their own" crowd (conveniently libertarian for a microsecond) shot down any notions that platforms needed some common carrier regulations. Then someone actually did the equivalent of getting their own social network by buying the most popular one, and suddenly everyone is up in arms.