No one is required to participate in any of the social media platforms.
If you mean their business model requires public participation to be successful the same is true for newspapers, magazines, TV shows, casinos, golf courses, shopping malls, restaurants, etc., etc. etc.
So far as i'm concerned, if the public utilizes a communications system, it cannot be "private."
The only reason to limit this principle to communications systems is it gets you your desired result without revealing that what you really want is government control of private property.
No one is required to use the telephone either, but they will miss out on a lot of social and business activity if they refrain from using one. Same thing with Fascist book.
If you mean their business model requires public participation to be successful the same is true for newspapers, magazines, TV shows, casinos, golf courses, shopping malls, restaurants, etc., etc. etc.
Those are one way communications. If google wants to publish it's own content, it ought to be able to do whatever it d@mn well pleases, but that's not how google works. They allow the majority of the public to upload communications, and they restrict it for anyone who expresses a position or opinion they think should be banned.
The only reason to limit this principle to communications systems is it gets you your desired result without revealing that what you really want is government control of private property.
Communications systems utilized by the *PUBLIC* cannot be "private property".
As Roberts said "No one can be allowed to own the law."
So too is it also true that "No one can be allowed to own public communications."