I think it would have been better to put these ideas into the revision of the first essay and to choose a different topic for the second essay. Here the argument for self-regulation seems to be hinged, as large company propaganda usually is, on the poor small companies that will allegedly be harmed by regulation through legal liability. But if the analysis that behavior-collection for advertising targeting as a business model is the source of overconcentrating that requires radical re-decentralizing of the web is correct (as people from Tim Berners-Lee to, well, me, have been arguing for almost a decade) than the regulation of the duopoly garnering 99% of the world's new digital advertising revenue is hardly a threat to small entities. The argument is basically two straw men folded together: that the largest platforms are just larger versions of Eben and Eddy's websites, which is preposterous, and that the removal of an artificial subsidy provided through synthetic legal immunity cannot be so designed as to fall primarily on those whose market power (over small web entities in particular) requires full exposure to the ordinary rules of society.

If you had taken a job with Kevin Martin, this form of argument would be par for the course. But in an academic rather than purely hired-gun forensic setting, this sort of framing isn't ideal. Your argument should be in actual touch with the best points made on the other side.