Good luck with that.

I never give them info, yet they have it. I would love to see violence used on Soros , Gates , Jack Dorsey , Schmidt , Bezos and Zuckerberg.
Most of these co.s were CIA creations using (our money)
Enriching those that spread a statist agenda by censoring anti statist messages .They call it “hate speech”.

If you don't like what they are don't use them. If you don't want them to have intimate information don't give it to them. Any regulation comes with the permission to use violence to control someone else to achieve what is considered a 'moral end'. The only place for regulation would be to prevent fraud. If the supplier offers a specific product but does not deliver then the consumer has a valid complaint.

Google, Facebook and Twitter came out of nowhere and so can other companies. I don't want Gov't controlling any businesses. Companies have the right to have political opinions. Just my opinion.

The solution proposed by one of the creators of the internet is a peer structured replacement he calls "Solid." Reading the articles he's published on the idea, it sounds similar to the Dark Net (DN), which already exists, fed by individual volunteers offering part of their personal computer resources as an alternative to the big tech servers.

While Virtual Personal Network promoters sell the idea that you can protect your information from invasive searches, they all have signed agreements with law enforcement that requires them to provide a path to enable searches subject to a warrant. The DN is technically criminal, in the eyes of government snoopers, because it isn't the property of any tech company, and the dynamic nature of information passing makes searches next to impossible. Big tech providers don't like the DN either, as they can't control it or track the users.

The DN provides a protected way for "pamphleteering" of information that would get you thrown off of a regular internet site. Monetizing is the hard part for DN use, as advertisers can't track your data, which is what they use in deciding whether or not to support you. That's sort of why any monetizing of DN actors often comes from criminal sources, as they only care about results, not hit counts. Nonetheless, it's beginning to look like DN may be the way to develop and promote big tech alternatives, dodging control and providing a libertarian free market alternative.

free market competition. others can start up abother google, facebook, twitter etc.

“I think Big Tech went so far that any regulation would be ineffective, other than wiping them off the Earth...”
Sounds like the new post modernist way their activists “solve” their many targeted “systematic problems.”

I think it's too late to fix it, they have gone way to far down the rabbit hole. Wish we could just bury it.

Calling all moral and ethical value creators, maybe we could use the blockchain idea and recreate social media that can't get screwed up and corrupted.

It’s a Creepy Line.
https://youtu.be/W8W4AXYEhv0

You could be right. Even breaking them up like Bell telephone was forced to divide there is not a single guarantee with the way we can store and manipulate data that anything will be truly isolated to one offshoot or another. This is why Soros and other can manipulate things to the degree they do. Society rushed into the tech straight jacket and not those who fastened the belts can do essentially whatever they wish.

I think Big Tech went so far that any regulation would be ineffective, other than wiping them off the Earth then rebuilding according to sane rules.

They have become a country on their own, thanks to millions of gullible people who must spill the most intimate details of their lives on the net.

As long as they do that, no amount of regulation would be effective.

What do we want them to be?