Bingo. Water flows downhill, systems tend toward entropy, and businesses do whatever makes the most money. If those actions (like child labor) are unacceptable to society, laws have to be made to restrain them, or they will keep happening.

In general this reads like a sickening melange of half-true diagnoses (yes, of course lack of competition is a problem) and naive appeals to the nanny state that don't understand what they're inviting. To whit:

"Renée Diresta, research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, said policy should also differentiate between free speech and free reach. The right to free speech doesn’t extend to a right to have that speech amplified by algorithms."

Yes citizen, you can say whatever you want. You just have to say it in this sealed, soundproof room with no windows! This is almost literally the author saying "You have the right to speak, you just don't have the right for anyone to hear you", which is nonsensical. Free speech is meaningless if you can't actually reach anyone with it. The right to yell your deepest beliefs in the middle of the Sahara desert isn't free speech.

But of course, this ability to silence "misinformation" is fine, because it will only be used against the bad people! Surely it will never be used to silence people like the author, because they're good and right! Never mind that this is already happening (Youtube is famous for silencing certain LGBT and sex-positive figures, as well as any number of left-wing activists, for example).