Yes it's popular and yes there's a lot of people on it and using it, but that doesn't make it a public commons, its ownership does.
>Yes it's popular and yes there's a lot of people on it and using it, but that doesn't make it a public commons, its ownership does.
Exactly. Folks who complain about the (lack of) moderation on some corporation's platform are, for the most part, certainly welcome to do so.
However, those corporate platforms (unlike public platforms) have no responsibility to host anything they don't want to host.
They are not your government. They are not your friends. They are not a public square. They are businesses whose goal is profit. And that goal isn't necessarily a bad goal either.
However, the business models of those corporate platforms are dependent on showing ads to those who use those platforms. That creates a variety of perverse incentives, including (but not limited to) boosting engagement by pushing outrage and fear buttons to keep folks on the platform, watching the ads.
And so I ask, does the above sound like a public square? It certainly doesn't to me. Rather, it sounds like a bunch of corporate actors taking whatever steps (regardless of impact on discourse) to maximize profit.
Again, that's not inherently a bad thing. But it doesn't (and never will) fit the bill for a "public square."
Well... It's a lot uglier of an issue than you state.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/can-government-officia...
Regardless of moderation or censorship, a public square would/should operate quite differently.
The USA has privatized its public commons, with exception of a library and city hall.
Twitter, Facebook, etc are the 21st c USA public commons. It's where the people are. It's where the local politicians are.
The downside: it's owned by corporate privateers who extract wealth from dissent.