> It's like saying you can't protest here because we decided to privatize all the public squares and paved roads, their owners don't want to see you, and the fi

> It's like saying you can't protest here because we decided to privatize all the public squares and paved roads, their owners don't want to see you, and the fist amendment does not protect you there, you can protest on a dirt road in the forest(TOR etc) where no one sees you. This is why I've always been skeptical of the whole 'no one owes you a public platform' thing. Because prior to the internet, they kind of did. Public property meant your protest would likely be visible to a large audience, even though those who may disagree with you or wish you'd go away. Even in cases that would probably horrify a large percentage of people on social media sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... In that sense, why you weren't de jure guaranteed an audience, you were de facto guaranteed one because public property was well, public. The internet being all private property means that while the legal basis of free speech isn't under threat, the practical purpose of it is.