. . . If he is saying that those sites surpress free speech then he needs to realize that "free speech" doesn't work that way in privately owned entities such as facebook, youtube, and other online bases such as websites. And there is nothing wrong with that. If someone does not like the way a certain website like facebook, google or youtube works, then no one is forcing them to use them. . . .
This argument breaks down when you get to a monopoly.
In the old days the Bell co had a monopoly.
You had to rent their phone by the month, but you were responsible for any damage.
One phone. Almost no home had two.
It was black unless you paid extra.
That phone did not move from it's wall. A table phone didn't move far.
They refused to put wires to remote rural locations, so many people had to share phones or drive to find a public phone.
It would cost a
fortune to make a call out of your area code.
When you could buy a hamburger for 19 cents, a Volkswagen for $1700 & gas was 24 cents a gallon, a long call from Denver to Omaha might easily cost $10 or more! You could drive the VW there for $10 gas, and have dinner too!
It was a total ripoff, but they justified it to congress by promising those rural wires (that never happened.)
Then congress broke up the monopoly.
Nobody really wanted this because the US phone system was the best in the world. People feared US service would become second rate. But as it turns out it was in our best interest.
All of those problems vanished. What we have now is much, much better.
And it's virtually world wide. I can message people in Texas or India or Brazil for no extra charge.
But we first had to look the other way while they made the sausage.