I cannot imagine a regulatory mistake any greater than finding a company run by complete sociopaths who openly disdain their customers, and letting them choose the rules for the industry. This blunder is perhaps the final humiliation of American government, finally demonstrating the capacity for wisdom in our system of lawmaking to be zero.
I've heard the argument that, if you're skeptical of the power of big business, do not let Mark Zuckerberg decide you need a fleet of lawyers to run a competitor to Mark Zuckerberg. He can afford more lawyers than you, and will just make Facebook worse and worse and extract more and more from the world if he has no threat of competition.
And if you're skeptical of big government, maybe don't give them control over the largest social network, particularly if you think it's been used for ill-political intent (either manipulation of people or blacklisting otherwise unobjectionable voices).
You'd think we would all be on the same page here, but even the less-than-absurd versions of this are bad. Lindsay Graham wanted to work with Mark Zuckerberg to set the rules. But even if he doesn't, the committee doesn't, and nobody talks to anybody... almost any regulation will systemically benefit Mark Zuckerberg. He knows that, has said as much, and that's why he's calling for regulation. If you think the person who has mocked people for using his website has suddenly seen the light on whatever pet issue you care about, you're missing the incentives here. This is not someone who cares about anyone but himself – and his place in the economy is locked in more when freedom to compete with him goes down.
The sad part is, this is coming, not just after the concerns about Russian fake accounts and improper influence, not just after high-profile coordinated de-platforming of controversial conservative figures, but after their growth in high-ad-cost areas has plateaud and started to decline. This is perhaps the most transparent corporate strategy I can imagine, has tremendous society-wide costs (can you imagine being stuck with Facebook for the next 100 years?), and we shouldn't have a lawmaking system where we can be tricked into boosting Mark Zuckerberg's share price.
Alas, that might not be possible. So I encourage you, if you're voting in competitive primaries, to find candidates that oppose this. Switching a party vote on this one issue is a tough sell (although, this particular policy does say a lot about the wisdom of the lawmaker), but I think this is a perfect issue to make people lose primaries over.
If you hate corrupt politicans and big businesses buying their success in Washington, this should be the number one priority for your call-your-Congressmen efforts. Most improvements we could make require writing a law, and trying to get it passed – it's a lot of work. But this just requires a No vote. If you call and demand that, they can deliver. If there's one thing we know from the gun rights lobby, it's that maintaining the status quo can be enforced by voter groups, not just organized political interests.