> a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform
what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.
what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly
Which one platform for user generated content do you think holds the natural monopoly? I agree that network effects limit competition, absent government intervention, but among my acquaintances people are using:
- Discord
- Snapchat
- Instagram
- TikTok
- Bluesky
- YouTube
- Twitter/X
- Reddit
I think that enforcing anti-trust would be enough to keep any one platform or corporate owner from monopolizing public discourse.
You do not get to say whatever you want in the local pub, the local library, the local mall, the local grocery store (even if it is the only one!) or the local town hall! You can be trespassed explicitly for your speech in any of them, or even for no reason. The only grocery store in town can say "You aren't allowed here anymore because fuck you", and as long as you cannot prove in court that they actually banned you for being a protected class, no more groceries for you!
The closest we have is "common carrier" concepts. The electric company has to serve even the nazis. So did the telephone company. I think the railroads were required to serve all comers?
Each of those were done for the purpose of encouraging a functioning market, actions taken against organizations that you cannot build competitors to, since the rights of way they use are basically gone and would cost absurd prices to replace the infrastructure for even a single customer.
None of this is true for Facebook or Twitter. Anyone can spin up a replacement in a day for dirt cheap, and can self host. The internet was originally built from people self hosting, and it's only gotten easier and cheaper, so the "But you can't replace it" argument has never held water.
If you are upset that a lot of internet companies are megacorps and don't have competition and that self hosting would leave you kind of lonely, I agree! Let's break up these absurdly stupid companies.
Don't claim to be advocating for "freedom of speech" if what you are actually advocating for is "I want to compel speech that I agree with from everyone else"
There is STILL no day to day requirement to be on facebook or youtube or whatever. There are a glut of youtube replacements springing up, because the "serving video on the internet is hard and expensive" narrative is mostly wrong, and because Youtube sucks for anyone who isn't Mr Beast, and the style of content they want that drives maximum profit.
What you're describing isn't a free speech concern. Free speech was always meant to be a protection from government limiting speech.
You can be trespassed from public property like a library but the bar is very high and simply saying something they don't like will not hold up in court.
Electric companies, social media companies, grocery stores, etc can do whatever they want with regards to limiting speech. The only issue would be if the government compelled those organizations to limit speech, see the Twitter files for an example of government overreach almost certainly violating free speech protections or finding just how far they can go before legal liability.
what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.