Not sure I have the answer to this, as there are multiple viewpoints and considerations.

I have wondered this: Pretend it's 1953. Newspapers rule. Laws prohibiting this notwithstanding, imagine that one wealthy newspaper magnate gained control over nearly 100% of the other newspapers in the nation. Imagine now that this private owner prohibited all but certain political views. How quickly do you suppose anti-trust legislation would be brought to bear against said owner? I offer that it wouldn't take long at all, at least not in 1953. That monopoly would be broken up quickly and laws installed to preclude the future occurrence of such again.

Now image it's 1966. Another wealthy media magnate, this time in the realm of television, manages to gain total control over (at that time) the three US television networks. This magnate unilaterally makes the decision that no anti-Vietnam-war views will be aired. None at all. Would have this occurred, parts of the nation would have likely seen demonstrations and riots like none before it. If no law existed to stop such monopolizing of television media, such would have been forthcoming immediately to stop the monopolization and preclude any such re-occurrence.

Today, newspapers are slowly dying, losing their influence. Television consists of hundreds of networks and channels, none able to maintain any monopoly nor ability to sway the public with a single viewpoint. That there may be a cabal of ownership espousing a particular view is a distinct possibility - witness the orchestrated chorus of coverage gained by Donald Trump during the GOP primary. Of course, we know now - having read the Clinton and Podesta emails - that the Clinton camp was behind the Trump primary-run publicity ... and saw how that strategy backfired spectacularly.

The Internet Giants were part of the Trump primary push as they allowed their bandwidth to carry it. Now, they are part of another scheme being pushed, in large part, by the same group who concocted the massive publicity for Donald Trump during the primaries. This, of course is the evidence-free Russia!Russia!!RUSSIA!!! propaganda scheme. Part and parcel of the RUSSIA!!!-baiting is the suppression of dissident speech, already well controlled in print and television. Up to this point, dissident voices have had a platform using the bandwidth of the Internet Giants, but now we see how quickly and efficiently that can be stopped.

The Internet Giants are quite close to, or already have arrived at, the status of monopolies. Most Americans are getting their "news" from Internet sources. The danger of them being able to totally control various narratives is evident to many of us. However, in today's environment, I cannot imagine that any anti-trust effort would be successful. All factions are attempting to gain hegemonic control over the narratives and none wish to hamper their own prospects, no matter how unlikely.

Who would bring anti-trust efforts to bear against the Internet Giants? Frankly, there are few politicians altruistic enough to have my trust in this matter. Further, any effort would likely mirror the massive divides in the nation, causing even more discord.

I have no solution, but we damn sure have a problem.

That's what I think, have always thought. People watch so much YouTube they forget how to think for themselves, become useless couch warriors.

Burning charcoal? WTF! Please don't. How 'bout read some science literature and stop heating the climate for your holiday pleasures. Why not make that tiny sacrifice? Don't answer, I've already been told by the democratic majority, STFU (drive cars to WalMart and buy crap, that's the system) Nope, lol.

There are plenty of books, magazines and other dead tree word holders that don't break our constitutional right to privacy. Too bad the founders never considered digital advertising, elections, marketing, propaganda, blah blah blah. Or maybe they did? heh I mean, out of the brains of wealthy white men comes a lot of sick shit, women are complicit. good luck

and another thing! (you asked for it)
Don't rely on jagoff comedians telling you what to think, no matter how entertaining. It's an oppressive distraction in my view. Why are "thinking people" even talking about Alex Jones? clickety-click! Page views for profit that's why. get real

dopamine click addict
KILL YOUR TELEVISION
Think For Yourself

The problem is patience, banning anything brings attention to it. Yes, I agree with Jimmy but what to do? Probably, Alex Jones received a spike of attention, now is in a precipitous drop.
I recall watching The Rachel Maddow Show when her guest was Rand Paul. She was baiting him into agreeing a shop owner has the right to ban a black person from sitting at the counter. Rand agreed, the owner has that right.
The logic being, over time the competition who would allow all people in would eventually attract most of the business; hopefully putting the bigoted business into bankruptcy.
Free market capitalism should produce that outcome if people are more selfish then racist in this case. The all inclusive business could afford to lower it’s prices compared to the bigoted one, drawing more frugal people.
The reasons I am not worried about it is patience, these platforms will turn into echo chambers. We are talking about it here, it’s extremely difficult to fully ban anything in this technological age.
The people still have a voice, Trump could have never won without a pretty fair election system, so that’s comforting; albeit the result for some.
There’s your real free speech right there, the questionable things Trump says. Again, patience. How many ideologs would like to ban his twitter account?
I too wonder, while growing up, how much propaganda I was exposed to.
How many free thinkers, alternative ideas and opposing viewpoints did I not get to consider because they were relegated into the abyss by the editors?
Patience and don’t worry, time is speeding up. Technological advancements occur with accelerated frequency, to fast to control.
People are different, left and right, lopsided news results in an echo chamber.
There is money to be made in providing the alternative view a platform and don’t we make money over all else?
Winston Churchill had it right when he said:
“Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”
I take this 99% literally, I don’t know if all here do. I like that they seem to be critical of Hillary as well as The Donald but I don’t “Feel the burn” Is that going to be O.K?
All eyes on the flag and we are united.