That's not exactly the correct legal take on Marsh v Alabama. The key question in Marsh v Alabama centered on whether or not that the sidewalk being owned by a

That's not exactly the correct legal take on Marsh v Alabama. The key question in Marsh v Alabama centered on whether or not that the sidewalk being owned by a company town caused it to cease to be a government for First Amendment purposes. If you look to the subsequent rulings section of the Wikipedia article, you'll notice that courts have--on multiple occasions--explicitly been asked to extend this analysis to "large internet companies are basically public square" arguments and declined to do so every time. The basis of distinguishing between the company town in Marsh v Alabama and Facebook is that Facebook doesn't perform any acts that look like government action--no "powers traditionally exclusive to the state." > It’s pretty hard to argue Facebook wasn’t an intended public forum. Literally you have your public wall and your newsfeed, etc. It's very easy to argue: Facebook wasn't created by the government. That is the nexus of the public forum, as far as SCOTUS precedent is concerned.