> If a single company believes they have the informational monopoly needed to control national politics,
There are other ways to interpret this statement. You have, without context, chosen to interpret it in the least charitable way possible.
For example, supposing that:
1. You believe that there was illegal foreign meddling with Facebook during the next election. [1]
2. Instead of one Facebook, there were many competing social networks.
3. They would adopt, with highly varying degrees of effort and success, institute compliance and controls to deal with #1.
One may reasonably and intelligently postulate that in such a parallel universe, #1 would be a bigger problem then it will be in our next election. (Because, thanks to economies of scale, and only having to implement it once, Facebook might do a better, more consistent job of being compliant, then 15 tiny social networks would.)
[1] I am of the opinion that that it is irrelevant, and that the whole bloody purpose of campaigning is to 'meddle' with public opinion, but that doesn't seem to be a popular position here. For some insane reason, we're convinced that foreign enemies of the American people should not campaign in our elections, but domestic ones should. Somehow, through some tortured interpretation of the First Amendment, one is protected speech, and the other isn't.
There are other ways to interpret this statement. You have, without context, chosen to interpret it in the least charitable way possible.
For example, supposing that:
1. You believe that there was illegal foreign meddling with Facebook during the next election. [1]
2. Instead of one Facebook, there were many competing social networks.
3. They would adopt, with highly varying degrees of effort and success, institute compliance and controls to deal with #1.
One may reasonably and intelligently postulate that in such a parallel universe, #1 would be a bigger problem then it will be in our next election. (Because, thanks to economies of scale, and only having to implement it once, Facebook might do a better, more consistent job of being compliant, then 15 tiny social networks would.)
[1] I am of the opinion that that it is irrelevant, and that the whole bloody purpose of campaigning is to 'meddle' with public opinion, but that doesn't seem to be a popular position here. For some insane reason, we're convinced that foreign enemies of the American people should not campaign in our elections, but domestic ones should. Somehow, through some tortured interpretation of the First Amendment, one is protected speech, and the other isn't.