This is getting into the more nuanced argument of “taking private property” for the public good - or at least allowing access to it for first amendment activiti

This is getting into the more nuanced argument of “taking private property” for the public good - or at least allowing access to it for first amendment activities. One issue with “forcing” first amendment protections on a private party is compelling speech from that party (in this case Twitter). If Twitter is entitled to first amendment “protection” from the government then it can’t be compelled to “speak” on behalf of a user. Prohibiting shopping centers from blocking first amendment activities recognized that there are only so many “publicly available” squares in “real life” where people can exercise their first amendment rights. This doesn’t exactly hold true on the internet. There are an “infinite” number of public squares. Another way to look at this is how IP “theft” is thought of. If I steal your CD you can’t listen to the music on it - but if I copy the MP3 then no one has been “deprived” of the original. Similarly “anyone” can stand in the “public square” of the internet without depriving someone else of that same space and access - an argument that doesn’t work in real life. If there are infinite public squares do you need to be given access to all of them? Do you want to be compelled to speak for someone else simply because you’ve become large enough? As a US citizen I’d prefer that these issues with corporations be addressed via other means that deal with monopoly power, open standards, data privacy/portability and similar. The first amendment is a powerful sword but it’s not a solution to a “bad actor” at the scale of Twitter - break up the company if you don’t like what they’re doing but don’t force them to speak for other people.