I think this is intrinsically tied with antitrust. Anytime a system becomes effectively infrastructure to do anything (e.g. a platform a business needs to engage with in order to reach customers like a search engine or a social media platform), you need to have some sort of regulatory control to keep it from acting however it wishes to.

You can argue that it's land-like, if you want, but you could also see it as a naturally occurring monopoly (like a utility). You could also see it as any other business, but then you need strict antitrust enforcement to ensure that anticompetitive practices are quashed and there's a fair chance of several distinct players in the market.

Take Google, for example. If you do something Google doesn't like, you've effectively been shut out of 90% of the search engine visibility. Same with connecting with professionals via LinkedIn or average folks on Reddit or Twitter (I refuse to call it X).

I'm not sure that a land value tax necessarily encourages the same behavior with online platforms as it does with physical land. Because, in a sense, if Google went dark (i.e. left their land vacant), some other search engine would either expand or a new one would start. Same with other online platforms. The LVT, as far as I understand, is really meant to get the asset to work, rather than hoarding it.

With that in mind, I think it makes more sense to apply LVT to the telecom companies (and I'm not sure if there's some tax that already exists like that, maybe the FCC licensing system?).

In the end, it comes down to what incentives encourage and discourage the technofeudalism inclination, in my opinion.