This was always the misconception about Twitter as the "public square": that authoritarians could somehow leverage something to force people to listen to their

This was always the misconception about Twitter as the "public square": that authoritarians could somehow leverage something to force people to listen to their bad ideas. I'm forced to walk through the public square on my way to work or to buy groceries or hang out with friends. I'm not forced to use Twitter; it's just a website that provided an amusing speech product that I enjoyed. Authoritarians saw Twitter and thought it would be productive for their political ends to force people like me to listen to their bad ideas. They couldn't, because Twitter was a private company that could control the moderation they used to create their speech product; it wasn't the town square and they don't have First Amendment rights there.[0] Then an authoritarian purchased the platform and thought that it would be productive for his political ends to force people like me to listen to his bad ideas. But he couldn't, because I could delete my account any time I wanted to and find another place to seek amusement. The main intellectual breakdown from which a lot of these people suffer is that the marketplace of ideas _already exists_ and it's what brings you things like, for instance, a liberal Twitter and an authoritarian Parler. These companies are (and should be) free to seek out their customers by shaping the product they produce by any means they want, including by banning you or deleting the things you say that will alienate or annoy their core consumer group. [0]: obviously relevant and timely discussion of government action doctrine deferred.