Internet also offers you large audience instantly. If you really wants your speech to been seen and not censored, you can setup your own website for it.

Right in theory but the internet is dominated in practice by a handful of giant companies.

The same way you can say internet is dominated by a handful of carriers. I see Facebook as a medium, a higher level one.

Tons and tons of newspapers? Not really. Here in Australia there are precisely two.

All major newspapers are owned either by News Limited, a subsidiary of News Corporation, or Fairfax Media.[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Australia#Newspapers_...

The US used to have a vibrant newspaper scene with all kinds of papers ranging the spectrum. This was in the 29th century. Since then a handful of giant corporations have dominated the media industry.

> This was in the 29th century.

Good to hear newspapers still exist in the future. :)

They clearly meant BCE as they used the past tense. ;o)

Three if you count Perth's local daily, The West Australian, which is owned by Seven West Media. That doesn't really change your point though. But, Australia is a small country (in population terms), and it only has six or so major cities, so I don't think we could expect vastly wider media ownership than we've currently got.

One could argue that we could add should, but we don't. We just think 23 million people can only support two news papers. That way we can claim there isn't a monopoly.

I would say the barrier to launching a social network is considerably lower than the barrier of launching a newspaper.

Getting a significant amount of users is tricky of course. But that's also true for both newspapers and social networks