It's naive to think that any one form of human organization, be it governmental or corporate, is somehow less corruptible than another. You're right to be on your guard against governmental abuses, but don't take your eye off the other balls in play.

History is littered with great companies toppled by better ideas and execution.

What we've seen lately are instances where one company topples another and proceeds to commit the same abuses, only more effectively and at wider scale. When Facebook replaced MySpace, were its users really that much better off? Which company had fewer rules and enforced fewer content guidelines? When one company dominates the market and locks it up with network effects, what incentive does that leave them to play well with others?

You don't think any organizations have ever been any more corruptible than any other organizations?

None of these organizations should have been trusted implicitly to do the right thing for society at large. The burden of proof rests decisively with those who want us to believe that Google and Facebook are somehow different.

Are you really claiming that very government that tries to regulate corporations is going to wind up like China?

You know there are lots of governments around the world that regulate corporations, and most aren't anything like China.

"Some people really do have a naïve trust in government. Free markets are the answer."

Some people really do have a naive trust in free markets.