And where were newspapers and political pamphlets sold? On the public streets and in the public squares, places that have always allowed for and accommodated alternative press and individual pamphleting.

The problem is we're beginning to replace all of that with a discourse that takes place only on privately owned and operated social media networks.

There is no public space on the web, just a network of private nodes. Unlike roads and walkways, the edges on this graph are non-existent. We can't bump in to people in between web sites, we can only interact with them inside of a private home, with private rules and private interests.

This is fundamentally different than the environment that lead to a constitution that included a promise of the freedom of the press. There is no freedom of the press for publishers on Facebook or Twitter, they can and do manipulate what and how things appear to advance their own corporate interests.

Our rights to the freedom of the press are public rights, like our rights to free speech and to congregate in groups, both of which are integral components to a functioning democracy.

Running your own website is nothing more than having your own private home, with images and words written on your own private walls. You have to invite someone inside to see it.

Private social networks take the roll of a pseudo-public space, much like a shopping mall. It may LOOK like a public square, but they can kick you out for any reason. They can decide who is allowed to operate a business and they can decide what is or isn't allowed to be said.

The erosion of our public spaces started long before Facebook but private social media hubs seem to be accelerating the pace.

This isn't about being better or worse off based on some arbitrary assessment, it's about recognizing the there are fundamental changes happening to society. If we're to expect things to continue to be peaceful and orderly we're going to have to make sure the ship stays the course.

Disruption as a philosophy is brash and arrogant and it makes sense that we're having issues with the transfer of institutional knowledge from the previous generation. We're still training lawyers and statesmen, but as far as Silicon Valley is concerned, they're destined to be replaced by software. Who is making this software and why the should anyone trust them to have any clue as to how to maintain society?

I think it is quite possible for us to update the fundamentals of our public infrastructure to the digital age, but it can't happen solely based on the self-interested profit motivations of private companies. It needs public oversight. How individuals communicate with one another is clearly a matter of public interest and one that any conservative or liberal should hold as fundamental a roll of government as enforcing private property and the right to a fair trail.

Anything outside of this scope of our existing law and order is revolutionary. But who are the revolutionaries and what do the rest of us stand to gain?

A lot of Silicon Valley's actions are basic and blatant disregards for the law, be it intellectual property with a website like YouTube or zoning and housing violations with AirBnB. Facebook fancies itself one day having a private system of revenue sharing for publishers, instead of our previous public system of copyright that gave constitutional charge for congress to regulate.

All of this is sold as innovation, yet it just seems like a short-circuit fueled by consumerism, with a hell of a lot of external costs being loaded on to public infrastructure.

We as a people give a charter to Facebook to operate as a company. It's not the other way around. Facebook is lucky that we have given them the privilege of a corporate charter. Facebook is lucky that it exists on top of a publicly mandated network neutrality.

The general feeling in Silicon Valley is that tech companies are entitled to this public infrastructure yet not at all responsible to public oversight.

Public oversight is spoken of like a communicable disease in this industry yet public oversight is what makes our marketplaces function and keep our legal systems working.

What if you could only start a corporation as a favor from a senator? What if we didn't have court-appointed lawyers? What if we copyright or trademark weren't equally granted nor equally enforced? What if there were no limits on private monopoly?

What if there were no public forums for debate?