You're going to need an excessively large government to be able to ensure that forums are following the constitution, to say nothing of jurisdiction

not necessarily, the system we have already has provisions that COULD allow for it

a lot of our internet usage is under the watchful eye of the big boys, right? google and facebook

make them liable for breaches of rights

they'll do it far more efficiently than a government could

They don't know the content of every site you've ever been on, especially if you aren't using their services

not them specifically, but those who are hosters

Like there's so many ways around this it's not even funny. And *then* there's the jurisdiction issue

there's so many ways around public forum breaches of rights it's not even funny anyway

"Oh we moved our site to [insert country here] so we can do what we like"

I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it'll be better than what we have now

except that sites aren't anywhere, that's why european and asian laws affect us in the US. they're not going to risk losing that many customers

The issue with what we have now is user driven. Giving the government jurisdiction over your private interactions with web hosts and other users will most assuredly backfire in the next 20 years

Not all sites are major platforms/data mining schemes

You're looking at a nail right now and saying "we should just hammer everything grey and metal"

maybe so, I'm just kinda pissed off at the situation we're stuck in. the internet acting as a series of privatized sites that are either colluding or getting crowded out by those who are is leading to horrible infringements on the way we speak, think, and interact

Sure, and I would love to see those sites yeeted honestly

For the most part I don't think they bring much to the table

the oligopolization of the internet means that we're basically dealing with an authoritarian government under the guise of a corporation. the internet is like its own country

and if you don't agree with the monarchs, you're silenced

Are we talking about ISP's or websites?

I was talking about websites, but ISPs aren't much better

internet should be a commodity service, like water. you pay proportionally for the amount you use, not the type you use

but that's a different argument

How is someone forming a website monopoly? The only real issue I've seen is MasterCard getting involved, but, as per your statement on government managing currency, should they not be regulated in that regard in your view anyway?

they're not forming a true website monopoly, but the big companies are throwing around their weight to crowd out alternatives and form a stable group of huge companies at the top.

as they get bigger, the barriers to entry of new companies get higher

we've already passed the point where starting your own service is more expensive than letting one of these big corps absorb you and use their platform

They're only getting bigger, ultimately, because people refuse to use alternatives.
Also the cost depends on the scope and type of service

If all you're after is group communication, you're on an alternative now, and there are FOSS equivalents

Pro privacy social networks also exist

yes, it does depend on type of service and scope. my worry is that these big companies have enough money to just absorb the small ones, and they're multinational so antitrust laws don't work as well as they should. I may be scared at nothing, but it just looks that way to me, that google facebook and amazon will soon have insurmountable majorities on the three big internet uses: interaction, information transfer, and commerce

That really doesn't make sense if you look at the way the internet is setup. It's not a railroad

Like the cost to set up a p2p or small chat service is whatever the data and electricity costs are at this point

yes but where does that get traction to engage in true competition with the services of the giants?

What is the basis you are competing on? What is the goal?

(maybe my idea of the internet is unreasonable) the goal is to have the internet be a system similar to an infinitely large public square. you set up shop and anyone can get to you if they want to engage with your goods or services. I know that's technically how it is, but every interaction with the internet is privatized, such that the method by which you seek out and find these "streetcarts" is itself a private service that could decide to intentionally hide what you're looking for

That's why there are multiple competing methods to find these streetcarts. You deciding to not use alternatives doesn't make them nonviable

DDG serves a purpose

it's not their viability that's the problem necessarily

it's the cultural crowding out. to continue with the metaphor, these other mapmakers are all there (to focus on google specifically), but in our society we tend towards the biggest one, who can then take advantage of that and just quietly leave out his competitors' stalls on his maps. It's not a perfect analogy, but we literally use the term "google" as a verb at this point, and many browsers open up right to it.