Demanding the right to profit from promoting it while refusing to pay the costs is clearly indefensible.
It is hard to see how he will manage to reconcile freedom of speech on the internet with the requirement to prevent legal but harmful content.
And I have every intention of further improving the requirements for platforms not to remove content from recognised media outlets.
For every bad headline there are hundreds of officers in forces like mine who are working around the clock to keep us safe.
Last week, one of the many dangers of such a project became clear: the possibility of its use for rampant paternalism.
All platforms, big or small, can no longer be allowed to spread hate speech.
Problems and risks such as the significant rise in online scams haven’t yet been adequately addressed.
It would be easy to write off the attitude of both as ‘only little earthlings pay taxes’, but the current taxation system allows them to get away with it.
Voters across the political spectrum are united in their wish to see more done here.
The UK has a lot to learn from the recent regulatory punch-up between Facebook and the Australian government.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China, have all invested heavily in new technologies – through government support for new industries.
State action to regulate social media is unproblematic in principle, but deeply problematic in practice – and the law of unintended consequences applies.
It will give the CMA almost unlimited powers to prosecute big tech companies. The Bill is a signal to stop investing in Britain.