Thats pretty reductionist - so is every newspaper, cinema, and television station. Perhaps your argument is that if a single company controlled all news, television companies and film studios, as well as several large social media properties, they would not be a monopoly - so long as some other large companies existed that competed in other ways for people's time? I mean I can see why you could draw such a conclusion, but I hope that you can also understand the other side that would suggest that a large company like that would be inherently harmful without actually deliberately leveraging its market share in anticompetetive ways.