The counterargument is that these tools are necessary in this day and age to participate in public discourse. Market failure when people don't have choice.
Are they though? I'm perfectly content discussing things in person with my friends. Let's not give these companies more credit than is due. They made a fun addictive toy and now we're all having a come to Jesus moment about the implications of said toy.
Headline from earlier this year: Federal judge rules Trump's Twitter account is a public forum.
The question has also been posed pretty frequently lately in relation to concerns that have arose over partisan censorship.
Well sure, it's a public forum. That's fine. We've shown that something as weak as Twitter can be considered sufficient enough to be a public forum. But it doesn't show that Twitter or Facebook or any of these toys is necessary for public discourse.
We did just fine for thousands of years without them. If they go away, I doubt many will miss them.
"The president now uses Twitter... everybody uses Twitter... All 50 governors, all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. So this has become a... crucially important channel of political communication." - Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
Granted, that was a case about whether North Carolina could bar sex offenders from social media, but the implications are pretty clear.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.