[jdauriemma]

You're touching on an important point, which is that users are essentially powerless in these online platforms. They are authoritarian entities whose interests align with users only incidentally, if at all. I do not think the state is better, as the state is generally captured by commercial interests anyhow.

[boruto]

I do not just mention the state, While a specific Govt may get sold out to vested interests, I completely believe judiciary, constitution(Voting rights) and media are stable enough to create checks and balances.

I have seen this in my country in the past fifteen years.

[jdauriemma]

Yeah but they still don't have a stake in the way that users do. Shouldn't the users have an ownership interest since their contributions are a necessary condition for the continued existence of those platforms?

[boruto]

What sort of ownership interest do you mean?

I always thought entertainment and audience to promote your personal brand is what you get in return.

[jdauriemma]

Users perform labor for Facebook every time they post, comment, or like. That labor produces real, material value for Facebook. The compensation for that labor rightfully must be negotiated with those who did that productive work. IMO the only just competition is in a material form, including users having the prerogative to vote for a certain number of seats on the Board of Directors.