Yes, this is essentially my point, except stated in a much more concise way than I was able to. The author wants something we all want – less power for massive private companies to control our society. But he doesn't want to accept what that takes – greater government control. So his essay is little more than inane rhetoric, e.g. journalists are basically silenced if they can't be on Twitter.

How does breaking them up not kick the can down the road? Presumably the forces that led to the monopoly of users will be in play after they're broken up. Enforcing freedom of speech on platforms that have become de facto utilities or public spaces is the only permanent solution on offer.