Comments by "earthstick" (@earthstick) on "Big Tech & Free Speech: Has Online Censorship Gone Too Far?" video.

Might have helped if they had spelled it Parlez or one of the other alternatives. Maybe that was just too far from mainstream for them.
4
People cannot help but lean to one side of politics or another. The social media giants started with intention to operate impartially but they have failed. They need anti-trust actions against them. Microsoft did when they tried to dominate the internet and the social media giants should now. The problem now the companies that host social media platforms have their own platforms, if a customer takes an opposite political stance to the social media giant then it can stop hosting them. Therefore they are competing with their customers and there is a conflict of interest. The first thing that needs to take place is that they need to be broken up into separate organisations for hosting services and social media platforms. The hosting services can enjoy the status of a utility company on the condition that they do not refuse to host any legal platform. The social media platforms can be just as political as a news paper or other media outlet but they cannot enjoy the status of a utility.
3
That also applies to app stores.
2
Other solutions are peer-to-peer technologies that can share data without the need for centralised hosts. That reduces the problem to how to collect fees. So there are at least two prongs of attack here.
2
The same was once true of TV broadcasters and before them newspapers. In the TV world there are companies who's sole business model is to provide broadcast services to channels. As long as the channel is lawful and the company has the capacity they will host a channel that pays the fee. We have just encountered an old problem in a new guise. There are technical solutions such as peer-to-peer technologies that remove the need for a central host. And there are legal methods that can be applied to break up the tech giants.
2