The monopolies which existed over 100 years ago were broken by Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman anti-trust act.
There are indeed monopolies today, whether you wish to acknowledge this or not. I'm beginning to get the idea that you are in over your head in this discussion.
And then we remember why we think the whole “hate speech” regulation thing is a bad idea.
The only thing that "hate speech" has to do with mass communications companies censoring American speech is that they want to censor hate speech too.
You are siding with their "right" to censor "hate speech" when you say they have a "right" to censor public communications.
And there you have it.
I have a response that does not address any part of what I asked about. I have a response that does not even make sense to me.
I’m not saying there are no monopolies today. But social media companies are very much NOT monopolies. Look here:
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-social-media-sites/#close
Now that’s an article about where companies should be spending their advertising time and money on social media. But right off the bat you can see they aren’t monopolies just because the article exists. If there was a social media monopoly that answer would be easy: the monopoly.
Now when you go deeper into it you see a lot of interesting stuff. There’s an estimated 4.6 billion social media users on the planet. The biggest platform, Facebook, self reports (and remember, these companies always over estimate their user base) 2.9 billion monthly average users. A lot, but far below the 80% market share line usually used to declare a company a monopoly. The top 4 combine for 9.1 billion MAU or nearly twice the total market. The whole top 10 combine for about 12 billion, or about 2.6 times the total market share. So we see from that that most users are on more than 1 platform. So clearly the anti-competitive moves that would make a company an illegal monopoly (remember, being a monopoly is NOT illegal but certain market moves do become illegal for monopolies) just aren’t happening.
So any time somebody talks about nailing any of these companies for being monopolies they are quite simply WRONG.
Putting the government in charge of speech is putting the government in charge of speech. Whether the bad excuse used is “hate speech” or “they’re monopolies” it’s still a bad idea. Explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. “Congress shall make no laws”. That’s the rule you want to cast aside.
Actually my response addresses EVERYTHING you asked. You just don’t like it. Which is on you. You are, as always, 100% wrong on everything.