The arguments made here lack fair basic analogies that show some modicum of critical thinking. So here's one: the point is made that social media companies have all this market power (thought not monopoly power, which in and of itself brings down the entire point of view here), despite their very narrow control over the vast and diverse ways by which news and information gets consumed, and thus should not be able to exercise their first amendment rights to be as biased as they wish. Supposedly their market power prevents.competition in the market for disseminating content. Except they have plenty of competition: cable news, online news websites, reddit, local TV news, radio internet radio, podcasts, etc etc. Fox News makes editorial decisions every day to not carry liberal points of view. And on my mom's cable package she has the "choice" of 2 national news channels, Fox and CNN. 2. That's it. no MSNBC or OAN or CNBC. So does her limited choice in the narrow medium of cable news mean that Fox and CNN should not be allowed to exercise editorial bias? The point of view here reminds me of the narrow thinking the FCC used as it considered blocking Sirius from acquiring XM because monopoly or whatever. Except, you know, FM radio, podcasting, MP3s, Spotify, etc etc etc. Moreover, there's no discussion of comparative audience sizes across horizontal media types. You'll find that Twitter in particular.has such a small audience that characterizing it as having actual market power that's adjacent to a monopoly would make Fox and CNN scream blogging malpractice on your part. They get no respect, they'd say. Please, next time, analogize and expand your imagination and demonstrate an understanding of the media consumption landscape to make a persuasive argument.