I was trying to figure out how it would entrench dominance. So when I say *if* it's by making them suck less, that's a hypothetical guess, not an endorsement.

And even if it would objectively make them suck less in some scenario, there's still nothing in that post that says I want the government to force them to do it. That post was only about whether it entrenches their dominance or not.

Then in my next comment I:

* put the word 'advantage' in scare quotes

* clarified that "if they suck less" is supposed to be evaluated by individual people and not me

* stated that there are reasons to not want regulation, but that I was skeptical of this specific entrenchment reason

The first two should make it clear that I'm not even saying it's an advantage, and the third should make it clear that I'm focusing on this specific argument and not making an overall case for government intervention. So that's three reasons I'm not saying the government should do it.

How do I make my non-endorsement clearer?

Also you were the one calling it a "competitive advantage" and "value proposition". That's not endorsement but it's definitely closer to endorsement than what I was saying.

Edit: Wait, I made this whole post interpreting the "should" as about government intervention. But I think technically that "should" was actually about the government deciding what makes people happy? If that's what you meant to ask then I have no idea how you got there. The sentences you quoted don't support that interpretation at all. The "suck less -> entrenchment" theory only works if users are actually happy, completely separate from what the government thinks.