I think your statement is the reverse of what was implied.
Doesn't libertarianism posit a weak central government, shedding all responsibilities (that can be shed) to the free market, where competition ensures the best outcomes, choices for all, etc?
If that's true, the current situation of wealthy corporations controlling various social media platforms is... the desired outcome?
The fact that competition is better in areas such as motor vehicles, due to physical standards like roads that work for everyone, lack of network effects, and so on, is beside the point. It isn't the government's fault that Orkut and MySpace didn't compete well against Facebook, or that Parler entered a service contract with another corporation that decided their TOS was violated.
This will all be sorted out in the courts, interpreting contracts which are the ultimate source of truth in the libertarian world view. Fear nothing, justice will prevail. If Parler was not in violation of the contract, they will be compensated. If they were, too bad, they failed to adhere to the contract they agreed to. They deserve to fail and the NEXT competitor to take up the mantle will have incrementally better information and chances to succeed.
That's like saying "Humans produce carbon dioxide, cars produce carbon dioxide, lets study human anatomy to learn how cars work".
OP's statement of "this is what we get" strongly implies that the current state of things is somehow the result of libertarian policies.
There is nothing libertarian about our government. That's why I bring up the extremely high spending and unjust laws we have. Blaming libertarianism for anything happening in the world requires some serious mental gymnastics.
China also has large corporations, should we blame libertarianism for all the human rights offences happening there?
Doesn't libertarianism posit a weak central government, shedding all responsibilities (that can be shed) to the free market, where competition ensures the best outcomes, choices for all, etc?
If that's true, the current situation of wealthy corporations controlling various social media platforms is... the desired outcome?
The fact that competition is better in areas such as motor vehicles, due to physical standards like roads that work for everyone, lack of network effects, and so on, is beside the point. It isn't the government's fault that Orkut and MySpace didn't compete well against Facebook, or that Parler entered a service contract with another corporation that decided their TOS was violated.
This will all be sorted out in the courts, interpreting contracts which are the ultimate source of truth in the libertarian world view. Fear nothing, justice will prevail. If Parler was not in violation of the contract, they will be compensated. If they were, too bad, they failed to adhere to the contract they agreed to. They deserve to fail and the NEXT competitor to take up the mantle will have incrementally better information and chances to succeed.