As far as I can tell, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia hold the same conditional monopoly as did ATT and are just as important if not more so. Yet they are more insidious because while ATT controlled the quality and cost of our information distribution, by contrast, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia control the quality and cost of the information itself, and that information is not subject to market forces.
There is no reason that we cannot (a) heavily tax these institutions, (b) heavily regulate these institutions (c) heavily localize these institutions, and therefore (d) reduce social and political conflict conducted via these institutions.
The minimum regulation I would place on them is that (a) no true statement can be suppressed. All non-false opinions, judgements, categorizations, can be expressed no matter how undesirable, (b) the ‘slider’ method to suppress or expose emotive language should be required. (c) individuals would have to declare their political biases, and then i) non-conforming information would be hidden from them, ii) they could not complain about non conforming that the sought out that conflicted with their profile, but instead, must fix their own profile, ii) and people cannot comment on that which is outside their profile.
Facebook and Google can already do this. Easily. Wikipedia can do this, just as easily. So can newspapers. And the news producer that does so, rather than having an editorial board, will survive, the rest will not.
So either you allow for both Aristocratic, nationalist, masculine, and eugenic people who look for rule of law and science, as WELL as communist, globalist, feminine, and dysgenic people who advocate social construction and pseudoscience or you are de facto creating an informational monopoly on a public commons.
Between the axis of gender/class strategy, and the axis of empirical/supernatural method of argument you can define all of the major discourses in this world.
Ergo, these companies can do this voluntarily or we will regulate them into utilities without the choice.
WHY DON’T THEY?