There is so much I could say about this article (besides that it is too long and repetitive, like most NYT pieces). I don't have time to address every point, but it strikes me as sour grapes. He's not satisfied with the millions he made and is jealous that the company is now worth even more. It also has a personal vendetta flavor. OK, I get it. You don't like the CEO. You're smarter, better, more attractive, nicer, more moral, more self-actualized, more deserving than he is, why is he so much more influential than you are? It's not fair. 

There are many outrageous assertions in this manifesto, but this one is scary: [there should be a new government agency to] "create guidelines for acceptable speech on social media." I cannot believe this dude is calling for censorship! He must be a conflict theorist - or at least on this issue. He wants "his" elites to control the "other" elites - those big, bad ones. His elites are more benevolent, and would take care of the little people (as long as they agree). He makes a lame effort to justify his attack on the First Amendment with the tired "you can't yell fire in a theatre" argument. What is he, in junior high school? 

I have a personal page with a news feed I carefully craft through hide, mute, un-follow. Us peons are perfectly capable of managing this ourselves, even if Chris Hughes is smarter, wittier, more clever, richer. I also administer three pages, one private and one public group. I am a member of several public and private groups too. I resent Chris Hughes having a loud, elite megaphone like the NYT. He drowns out other voices. I want him to shut up and stop advocating for government to tinker with my social media.