I have no issue with free access to Internet discourse! In fact, I wish we had more free access to Internet discourse. What I object to is the commodification of attention, the deployment of sophisticated algorithms intended to drive clicks/views (and thus promote the most divisive and controversial viewpoints), pervasive surveillance, and so on. I don't think regulating these facets of our present-day technology, which are driven by profit motives, not by the desire of ordinary people to speak to one another, is at all incompatible with a free and open Internet.

> What I object to is the commodification of attention,

What exactly would you regulate or "crack down" on?

People are free to choose what websites they visit. This idea that evil social media companies have used technology to force people to view content they don't want to see has gotten out of hand.

> the deployment of sophisticated algorithms

Again, what exactly would you regulate away? Ban websites from showing related content? Ban Facebook from showing you things your friends are interested in? Ban Netflix from showing you shows you may like based on your previous viewings?

Would you ban Hacker News' algorithm that determines which posts are shown on the front page? Just force everything to be un-algorithmic and chronologically ordered like the new page and hope for the best?

Which do you believe, that there is no problem, or that there is no solution to it?

I believe there is a problem, and I also believe it is possible to solve it in a way that upholds democratic values.

If you don’t think there is a problem, then we see things very differently, and we’re not likely to agree. But if you agree there is a problem, why not advocate for a solution?