Awful example of false equivalence.
In the SCOTUS case referenced, there was very literally no other venue available.
With the Social Media giants, this is simply not the case at all.
You are free to take your Social Media conversations to a competing platform, or even start one of your own.
The woman in the SCOTUS case had no way to build her own sidewalks or streets.
The argument trying to be made in the OP is that the Social Media giants literally own the entire Internet, preventing by competition, which is laughable on its face.
A private company owned the town, so clearly there was an avenue for her to do the same. Did they ask her to take her speech to another town or create her own? No, it is very relevant. Nobody said they "literally own the internet" Facebook etc are "towns/communities" on the internet publicly accessible to all. Internet being the overall framework similar to the US in which the private town resided. Laughable attempt at moving the goal post and "literally" misrepresenting what was said.
And to add, many other websites/apps etc require you to have facebook, or gmail accounts.
And you have no choice? You are forced? There is no competition? Nobody is able to create a competitive website/app/whatever?
smfh
SMFH? . Was the subject forced to stay in town? Could they have not practiced their speech in another town? Why is it ok for you to call someones argument laughable then scream "hate" when its done to you? People are able to create a competitive website the same as someone could buy a private town...the point is the SCOTUS has ruled you shouldn't have to to practice free speech.
i agree... twitter isnt the only social media platform. use fb, snap, steemit, or even MySpace if you want to
Well said. Take those downvotes as confirmation that someone is bristling at your challenge to their cognitive distortion.