For many, many people the internet doesn’t really exist outside of a few FAANG apps.

Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it?

Add to that platforms such as Facebook groups and Reddit subreddits, where the individual groups are much more like stalls and the platform is like the mall.

> Even for technical users, if you want to post a political video, is there really an alternative to YouTube with any audience for it?

To be fair, Rumble is a decent alternative. Some videos have millions of views, they basically accept anything that’s protected by the first amendment. A lot of banned creators have moved or are moving there.

That said, I’d still argue YouTube is “the commons”. Just like you can have multiple malls and a town square, there’s no real argument there should be a limit.

No one's entitled to an audience.

No one disagrees with that.

In a free society you’re free to speak in the commons. That doesn’t mean anyone has to listen. That said you can’t boot everyone you don’t like from the town square.

Social media posts can be made, doesn’t mean you have to follow or read.

Start your own website. It's not a town square. There's infinite land on the internet for interested people to create their own forums for discussion. There is no barrier to getting started, there's no reason to make laws creating entitlements for viewpoints in the private domains of others.

> Social media posts can be made, doesn’t mean you have to follow or read.

... or share posts. The same applies to social-media-companies themselves. They don't have to "share" your post to anybody.

They have much the same rights and obligations as you do (especially if you believe that corporations are "people").

It is a different question as to are they monopolies and should the law do something about monopolies.

Social media companies' platforms are not "Town Square". How do we know that? Because tax-payers are not paying for their operations. Their share-holders are paying for that by retaining some or most of the revenues in the company.

I’d argue sharing is still free speech. If I copy & paste that’s okay? Lol

> Social media companies' platforms are not "Town Square". How do we know that? Because tax-payers are not paying for their operations. Their share-holders are paying for that by retaining some or most of the revenues in the company.

This has already been litigated in American history. It’s called a “company town”. I also previously mentioned how you can have protected speech in places like malls (litigated in New York and Chicago).

The stores or more like company towns ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

> ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town

The difference is that people giving out the religious materials were doing the giving out. The ruling didn't say they could just send the materials to the owners of the side-walk who would then have to give them out to everybody who walks on their sidewalk.

That would be like expecting Facebook or Twitter to distribute any materials you give them, to everybody who visits FB. That would be totally unfair, companies don't have the obligation to pass on your messages to anybody.

Freedom of Speech means I don't have to repeat and amplify what somebody else says or wants me to say. It is not only the freedom to speak what I want, but also the freedom to NOT speak. And companies have freedom of speech too.

This judicial ruling sounds very suspicious to me.

The internet are the roads (also the commons), social media is the town & national square.

The stores would be equivalent to stores. So Amazon, Etsy, etc. you can get there through social media.