There's nothing duplicitous. A private entity is providing a free service along with terms of use. Why should anyone think they're entitled to another person's

There's nothing duplicitous. A private entity is providing a free service along with terms of use. Why should anyone think they're entitled to another person's property? > it also probably isn't a welfare-maximizing use of space. Probably not, but that doesn't make the property any less private. Anyway, it hardly sounds like the corporations' terms are unreasonable, or significantly worse for "welfare" than those of a public park.