Fortunately, in the US, we have the first amendment as a shield against authoritarians who would dictate the content we see.

Against government authoritarians.

You have no shield against private oligopolies.

Really? What's the difference? It's not whether it's public or private making the decisions (they are both considering the amount spent in lobbying), it's the degree of control you ought to worry about.

There needs to be an actual free market where people have a realistic set of alternatives.

Pointing out public versus private is IMO misidentifying the problem.

> Really? What's the difference?

For starters, Google doesn't get to raise a private army or arrest The Hill for misuse of their services.

Historical various East India Companies did exactly that while also holding monopolies.

With enough size and political influence they could do it, it just hasn't been in fashion.

Who else but the government is going to force Google to host content against their wishes?