Twitter and facebook have become an internet "public square", kept in monopolistic power by network effects and compulsion mechanisms stronger than casinos.

Insofar as they're monopolies, they should be managed by the people as if they were a public space.

There is prior case law to support this idea.

This would be similar to the central area of a mall or when companies provided housing to workers to prevent unionization efforts. Both places were upheld as places where the First Amendment must be upheld, despite private ownership.

By what objective metric(s) do you determine that a particular website has become an internet "public square"?

Ok. Where's the internet public square? Please show me the way because I think I forgot my map.

When the president of a country is using it.

Why does the unwelcomed network want to stay on Twitter. Why don't they make their own news feed site to post and comment on?

Because it's not about being able to say what they want on a particular platform, it's about saying what they want where everyone else will hear it.

A lot of people look at this issue and see two groups fighting over it. There are (at least) three groups though: for, against, and undecided. This is really a fight about how to convince the undecided, so solutions like "go make your own platform" aren't desirable; undecideds aren't going to know about the new platform, and won't automatically appear en masse on it, so it actually makes reaching them more difficult.

If that's a genuine question .. .. .. you can research on the term network effects.

> Twitter and facebook aren't public utilities.

> You're still free to send a text, write a letter, call

Exactly. This is why free college and free medical care are not necessary.

You can learn from public libraries and go to the forest and apply herbs when you are sick.

We didn't take over Harvard and make a public university. They co exist. Do we need a publicly run social media?

Though tbh I'm not totally sure what point you're trying to make.