It certainly presents problems when all the most popular channels for communication are controlled by a handful of companies.

And that they grew to this point before imposing this "curation". It seems to be a recurring theme with these companies to grow to a monopoly with a place for relatively free discourse and then to do this as soon as they feel safe.

The incentives are aligned that way... once you're big the biggest thing is protecting your position.

To be fair information is a weapon and there should be no free reign for anyone. If you are on purpose suppressing some information to fulfil political agenda - that should be a criminal act.

Ok, but what about the opposite: What if you are, on purpose, constantly disseminating false information to fulfill a political agenda?

So what's a political agenda?

Is the promotion of cats a political agenda? Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs?

> Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs?

Sure. Why shouldn't a private entity be able to determine what kind of speech they allow on their own property?

Because if they have a huge defacto monopoly, and also a outsized impact on our culture, the impacts of them doing so are far more far-reaching than, say, LiveLeak removing some video (trying to think of a competitor for YT is surprisingly hard).