Apparently the author's solution is to make sites like facebook forced to be more open, by the government?

While the author simultaneously admonishes a new EU law designed to control the internet.

This is contradictory. It makes sense to want sites like facebook to be more open, but is using the government to force it the right way for it to happen? Or should alternatives be built and facebook stop being used instead?

Also why would a government limit facebook, when they're using it as a spy tool to gather info on everyone?

This lady seems well-intentioned, but naive.

Also the random jab at populism halfway through was weird. The amount of hate some people have for populism I will never understand. Isn't the point of a democracy to elect officials who will do the popular thing?

The author seems like she wants the government to control the internet, but only in the benevolent way she imagines.

She doesn't speak about building alternatives to these massive monopolies, or using the power of technology to route around censorship. Nope, she wants government intervention to save us. And only the right kind, not the bad kind. Which will happen because reasons.

Keep dreaming, lady. Meanwhile the rest of us will be building functioning alternatives to outgrow the old internet that has become institutionalized and stale. This is something that needs a technological solution, not a political one.