Look, the core issue is that social media platforms have become essential infrastructure for public discourse, yet they're run like private clubs with absolute power over what we see and hear. When a handful of companies control the town square, that's not a free market—that's a monopoly on speech. Treating them as public utilities means they'd have to provide equal access, transparent rules, and fair treatment, just like a phone company can't refuse you service because of your politics. I'm an ethicist, so I always ask: is this right? From a utilitarian view, the greatest good comes from maximizing diverse voices and minimizing algorithmic manipulation. From a deontological perspective, there's a duty to protect users' basic rights to information and participation. And from virtue ethics, we want a society that values fairness, not one that lets private billionaires shape reality for profit. Yes, regulation has risks. But leaving these giants unaccountable is worse. Public utility status isn't a silver bullet—it's a baseline of responsibility.

[No submission - Time expired]