RE: Independent Media Duped, Begging Government to Regulate Social Media
Good of you to call out this ploy. I've noted it myself.
I favor a scale dependent solution. At the small scale, people can put up any kind of system and censor as they see fit. This preserves the right of people to not service people they disagree with on platforms they have created. It also keeps all regulation away from individuals and small business so that the bar of entry into the communication/social media marketplace is kept low.
After a certain scale, platforms are ruled a utility service and aren't allowed to censor anyone - just like telecommunication companies. People should be just as allowed to exercise free speech there as they are when talking to someone on the phone. I even believe incitement should be covered by free speech -albeit, people who actually commit violence should be held to account and/or risk profiled to ideally prevent it.
A solution dichotomized by scale preserves greater freedom than solutions that disregard scale.
That scale model is interesting. That way the little ppl aren't hurt while the big names have to pay up. But it still gives power to the central government. It's a better option for sure though ;)
Capitalism tends to reward competitive companies by making them larger. Large companies are fewer than small companies so choice among them is intrinsically reduced. It is more profitable for large companies to approach the traits of a monopoly so under capitalist forces alone, they do. Collusion among companies collectively produces the traits of a monopoly so under capitalism alone collisions will automatically arise. It is in the interest of monopolies to obstruct competition which may displace them, so they do.
What factors do you believe will compel large companies to act in the interest of the people if not something like government? It certainly isn't capitalism. Capitalists (incl. AnCaps) and free market believers have the assumption that a high degree of competition is the stable point for capitalistic systems. It is not. High competition represents an immature market and is a transitional period. As all markets mature, they arrive at ever increasingly stable monopolies and collusive collaborations.
Some force beyond capitalism alone is required to coerce quasi-monoplies to act in the interest of the people when the inevitable corruption of competition unlinks the interests of the people from the goals of the company.