- April 28th, 2022, 11:17 pm
#641988
There’s just absolutely no getting around the fact that Twitter is a privately owned company. It could serve in the exact role of a public square and still not be “the public square” because it’s private.
Imagine if you owned a piece of land and that piece of land became a gathering place where everyone would come to talk to each other, exchange ideas, listen to speakers, etc. Your land might function as a public square, but at the end of the day you can still kick anyone off your property that you choose.
If Twitter was exactly the same but run by the government, then you have an argument that it’s the public square. Until then, the "public square" argument is nonsensical.
Imagine if you owned a piece of land and that piece of land became a gathering place where everyone would come to talk to each other, exchange ideas, listen to speakers, etc. Your land might function as a public square, but at the end of the day you can still kick anyone off your property that you choose.
If Twitter was exactly the same but run by the government, then you have an argument that it’s the public square. Until then, the "public square" argument is nonsensical.