“And of course the DOJ can bring anti trust actions against several of them as illegal monopolies.”
And they would lose. None of these sites are remotely monopolies. Standard Oil was a monopoly. Some random social media site is not. You have plenty to choose from. I learned of 7 that I didnt even know existed a week ago.
“And let’s not forget, the courts can rule they are the equivalent of the town square and thus cannot ban anybody who does not engage in clearly illegal speech.”
They wont, because that is an absurd observation. Those sites are not companies charted by the state. They dont owe you a space.
“.just like the 9th circuit ruled a privately owned shopping mall on private property could not bar a group of protestors from coming onto their property to protest.”
I’m not sure what you are looking at, but this only exists in California.
“There’s nothing tyrannical about any of that.’
Never really is when the embrace it. right?
“And they would lose. None of these sites are remotely monopolies. Standard Oil was a monopoly. Some random social media site is not. You have plenty to choose from. I learned of 7 that I didnt even know existed a week ago.”
Oh I disagree. Several of them hold a very high market share and have no real competitors worthy of the name due to network effects. ie. everybody is on youtube because everybody is on youtube. Same goes for facebook. Ergo, the barriers to entry are quite high. It is far from certain the DOJ would lose an antitrust action.
“They wont, because that is an absurd observation. Those sites are not companies charted by the state. They dont owe you a space.”
Its no more absurd than the 9th circuit’s ruling in the case I outlined. They “owe” us all a space in the same way that private shopping mall does.
“I’m not sure what you are looking at, but this only exists in California.”
Not exactly. The court Circuit Court in Alabama made a similar ruling about a company town in 1946. There IS precedent for this. The SCOTUS has never taken up the issue but could.
“Never really is when the embrace it. right?”
Call it the Fairness Doctrine 2.0