Are you saying the FCC and the long history of regulation against media information monopolies does not exist? Or that it never should have existed ? You seem to have argued both points.
The practical solution is for the FCC to regulate media monopolies more like internet service providers. They supply the wire but don’t get to dictate content except for a few small exceptions. As previously explained , those exceptions include active incitement to violence, direct solicitation of serious criminal acts, and violation of national secrets. There is a long history of discussion and court rulings about the obligation of radio stations, TV stations, and internet access providers to allow citizens access to any otherwise legal communication, or to ensure a broad spectrum of views are aired, and to make the license of the media monopoly to operate contingent on its conformance with rules in the public interest and the specific inclusion of promoting political speech as a fundamental aspect of the public interest.
Since there is nothing unlawful about free speech protected by the First Amendment, any dominant media company would have to provide venues for all kinds of free speech, in particular, political speech. I have no problem if such a media giant wants to label videos with a warning “views not approved by official scientific consensus” so you won’t, by chance, be exposed to different ideas. It is easily and eminently workable. It did work for a half century. The FCC has regulated radio stations, phone companies, and TV media since 1934 and communications did not come to a halt.