I'm not sure that's relevant here. The only way that flies is if the armed forces are deployed against the companies in question, something that is expressly forbidden in federal law. (And if that ever becomes an issue, the USA as we know it has already ceased to exist)

If I understand your point, you are conceptualizing the discussion as "how could Trump attack FB" vs "how could Zuck attack the US"?

Is that fair? Or do I not understand your point?

What? No. I was saying that bringing the armed forces into the discussion is, at best, a non sequitur since their use is A. illegal, and B. implies the rest of the system is trashed enough for it to not matter anymore should they be used.

Opinion manipulation is a powerful thing. Something that, in this country, won't be fought with guns.

It is not illegal for the POTUS to use the armed forces.

I agree with would be outrageous if they were used against US corporations -- but who is proposing that???

I guess I don't understand your point.

Why bring up military force as superior in power to social engineering via media if its use is off the table?