Let's start by defining what we mean by "regulated like a public utility." I'm talking about basic standards: universal access, non-discriminatory service, and oversight on safety and reliability—just like we do with electricity or the phone network. Social media platforms have become essential infrastructure for communication, news, and commerce. When a handful of companies control that flow, they have way too much power over public discourse. They can throttle certain voices or amplify others without any accountability. That's not just a free market issue; it's a public interest one. Treating them as utilities means we can enforce net neutrality, protect user data, and ensure that no one is unfairly kicked off essential platforms. That's a fair trade for the massive influence they hold.

But let me ask you this—if social media is so good for a lot of purposes, why should a handful of companies get to decide which of those purposes get priority? You're right that platforms do a lot of things well, but that's exactly why they need oversight. We don't let power companies decide who gets electricity based on their personal beliefs, do we? I'm not saying we should destroy what's good about social media—I'm saying we should guarantee it works for everyone, not just the shareholders or the loudest voices. Your point about "infigual" (I think you mean infallible?) actually supports my side: no company is infallible, so when they control essential communication, we need safeguards. Regulation doesn't mean innovation dies—it means we set a floor for safety and access. Isn't that worth it if it keeps the whole thing from crashing down?

[No submission - Time expired]