A public square doesn't stop being a public square merely because it's privately owned. The reasoning in Marsh v. Alabama still seems valid to me, even if the court has softened on it in the past few decades.
When public communication is dominated by a few forums that happen to be privately owned and being banned from these forums ensures that nobody hears you, then actual practical exercise of free speech requires that these forums be viewpoint-neutral.
I'm convinced that all these people who show up on every HN and cheerlead for private censorship would be ecstatic about repealing the first amendment itself. Either you support the ability of ordinary people to express unpopular ideas as a practical matter or you don't.
I've met nobody with a principled commitment to free speech who nevertheless argues that the likes of Google and Facebook should be able to control the public conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
When public communication is dominated by a few forums that happen to be privately owned and being banned from these forums ensures that nobody hears you, then actual practical exercise of free speech requires that these forums be viewpoint-neutral.
I'm convinced that all these people who show up on every HN and cheerlead for private censorship would be ecstatic about repealing the first amendment itself. Either you support the ability of ordinary people to express unpopular ideas as a practical matter or you don't.
I've met nobody with a principled commitment to free speech who nevertheless argues that the likes of Google and Facebook should be able to control the public conversation.