The private freedom of association is just as foundational to the US (and liberal society broadly) as the freedom to speak without government intervention.

Is it a private association when the extent of a reach of a given entity rivals that of a nation-state? I am not disagreeing with your argument in principle. There has to be balance. Right now, that balance is out of whack.

Yes. The public can choose to create a legal structure that does not let private entities grow so large, but we have not chosen to do so, and that choice does not mean that private entities are de facto public.

Those structures already exist. They are typically categorized under anti-trust category. The issue is that between regulatory capture, revolving door, dual party system and average voter distracted by carefully selected social issues, the choice is theoretical.

I am not automatically arguing they should be public. I am saying they should be cut down to size.

>I am saying they should be cut down to size.

I've heard that a countless number of times and yet nobody has been able to come up with a good way to do that or even demonstrate that it needs to be done, or demonstrate what it would accomplish, or demonstrate that it would not make the problem worse. Every congressional hearing I've seen has ended with a failure to even explain the basic reasons why it's being done. It all seems to eventually revert back on a list of personal grievances that some individual or group might have with the company, which do not require antitrust action to correct, and the judges notice this and throw the case out.

I would be much more in favor of something like GDPR, but the US has no political will to enact something like that, it's all personal grievances all the way down, on both sides of the aisle.

> foundations of US.

I'm not sure if you are meaning United States or emphasizing humanity, but in either direction: a private company's social media application gets to chose the content that goes on the platform. I'm all for free speech as intended by the constitution. I can say hateful things, and cannot be prosecuted by it. BUT I'm perfectly fine in a world where if I say something against a "Do no harm" policy of a website, I get kicked off that platform.