I don't think you understand how case law works. Unless you're making an argument for full legal instrumentalism(?)

I just don't think a mall and Twitter/Facebook are particularly comparable. They have some things in common, but they differ in large, important ways. If every mall in the US was actually the very same mall, and getting banned from one got you banned from all malls, and malls could shadowban you, and the President typically communicated via malls, and malls were the primary way in which society spoke to each other... and on and on.

Then again IANAL, so I definitely don't understand how case law works. Just using common sense here. All I see in common between malls and Twitter/FB is they are both private property and speech is involved. There's a chasm beyond that.

Fair enough, but the courts don't simply say Yea or Nay, they explain why the First Amendment doesn't apply to malls, and the reasons are valid for Twitter too. By the way, IANAL either, but rayiner is :)