>
Facebook, Youtube, etc. have sufficient market share (globally even, not just in the US) as to be near monopoliesThe FCC does not regulate broadcasters because they're monopolies. It regulates them because they are granted the right to use a finite public resource. You're comparing apples and oranges.
> If the social and online media companies were broken into many small competing companies such that new ones could spring up easily
I strongly support breaking up the big tech companies. It's almost impossible to compete with them on their ad business.
But as media companies? It's absolutely trivial to compete with them, and they don't seem to try to stop anyone. They just copy their business model.
Since Facebook was founded, the following social networks have become huge and competitive with them: Twitter, Instagram, iMessage, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Kik, Telegram, Signal, TikTok, Vine, Tinder, Bumble... and those are some famous ones.
The problem with Facebook being so dominant is how they did it (by buying competitors) and how they wield their power in the ad space.
> it's not "blatantly unconstitutional" and corporations can jolly well be compelled to broadcast speech they'd prefer not to
No, it's not. It doesn't become true because you keep saying it or because you think it should be. There is no precedent for something like this. You're making the more niche claim, so the burden of proof is on you.