I think this is erroneous. People like their answers in black or white, and they have difficulty dealing with shades of gray. You find that in the real world especially in physics, boundaries are fuzzy and not clear, but yet the principles involved can be straightforward.
As we know from nuclear science, it is impossible to predict the point at which a specific atom will undergo fission, but collectively we can predict what the group will do quite accurately. Much of physics regarding the location and energy of particles deals with a "probability cloud" rather than absolutely accurate values.
The principles used in juggling these "fuzzy" factors are not invalid simply because it's so hard to accurately read the existing values. They are still valid principles even when the edges are fuzzy.
"We the People" are a body, not individuals. Trying to look at problems on the individual level will give you a false comprehension of how the overall system operates. You literally get stuck being unable to see the forest because you are too focused on individual trees.
My standard is "significance" and "threat potential." Just as it's difficult to accurately pin down some specific number regarding market penetration constituting "monopoly" so too is it difficult to say this value or that value will constitute an existential threat to the nation through control of communications.
We are in the area of "fuzzy logic", meaning the parameters are not easily definable.
I may not be able to give you precise numbers, but the probability cloud informs me that if we continue allowing censorous control of mass communications, the end result will be the loss of all our freedoms from the creation of a totalitarian state.
That sounds good but we're a nation of laws.
Laws have to be clearly defined and unambiguous.
You're describing something akin to "common sense" which is a horrible standard to use when wielding the power of the state.
Can you name another area where the laws are as fuzzy as what you're advocating?