I agree, but we're not in a situation where Facebook and google accounts are necessary elements of life nor is that likely. Everything you've mentioned has viable alternatives because none of these companies are a monopoly on those things. You have to first make a case that alternatives don't exist for necessary services and no such case exists.

It's a huge stretch to go from we the public have a right to regulate private companies-which I agree with-to those companies require regulation.

How would you define 'necessary elements'? Honest question.

Hypothetically, if there was plenty of alternative, but in practice everyone used FB/Google/etc., would that change things in your mind? It's not a technical monopoly, but practically it would be.

Mind, I'm not saying that I think this is the case, and I think we shouldn't preemptively do something about it quite yet. But I do feel the article at least makes me uncomfortable about the possibility.

Basically, I guess my question is: does it matter whether something is technically not a monopoly when, practically, it is? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Does anyone require a Google account to live, no; it's a luxury item. Unless and until not having a google account prevents you from living in this society, i.e. unless it becomes a basic utility which without you cannot function in society, then I don't believe you have any right to regulate Google. It matters when something is a monopoly when its service becomes no longer a luxury but a necessary element of life in society. If I can't get utilities to my house because they rely on a Google account for authentication, then you can regulate Google.

That still doesn't really satisfy me. What divides 'living' from 'luxury item', at least in the context of places like Western Europe? Or is that already a point of contention?

To make things even more extreme: assuming that practically speaking all internet users get 100% of their content via FB (whether FB proper or WhatsApp), and perhaps Google, and assuming that FB and Google were free to do as they please, in that extreme case would you still argue that because technically a person could enter a non-FB or non-Google URL, buth FB and Google should not be regulated in any way?

Again, I'm honestly asking because I respect your views. I do realize that as far as making any kind of case this a reduction ad absurdum. I would just like to hear more elaboration to bridge the gap between your point of view and that of others here (many, based on the downvotes you're getting)

Yes I would, again, not having a Google account does not threaten your ability to survive and you do not have a right to someone else's services and labor except under extreme special circumstances. As long as you can setup a blog and self host, you will never have a right to Google's services in my opinion. No one company will ever own all possible channels of broadcast, and your right to free speech means only you cannot be jailed or punished by the government for your views; it does not grant you a right to be serviced by broadcast medium possible. You do not, and should not ever, have a right to a Google account.

They are both getting pretty close though, to being the only option in their area (social network - especially considering how many apps rely on facebook for authentication - and search).

The areas themselves however are luxuries, you do not require access to a social network or internet search to live your life. And no, Google isn't the only option for search, nor Facebook the only option for social networks. There is no justification for regulating these companies that isn't infringing on these companies rights to do business. You do not have a right to their services, their services are not something people require.