Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I used to be a free speech absolutist myself back in Snowden times FWIW, there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. When individuals or other fully private entities decide they don't like someone's speech and choose to not associate or support that person/entity any longer,…
> other fully private entities While I agree, I think it's possible for those entities to become so massive that they become de facto public entities and ought to be regulated as such. The prominent example being social media: such a tiny handful of companies are responsible for such an enormous portion of our collective speech that they are de facto public squares. In such cases, these technically-private entities s…
FWIW I said "fully private" specifically with organization "quasi-government power" in mind since there is none of that involved here and I didn't think it worth getting into there. That said, I disagree with you that mere size at all makes a company quasi-governmental, and in particular disagree with your chosen example of social media. That's actually a really weird one to choose compared to classic natural monopolies like physical utilities, particularly when they are in fact directly leaning on government power (like wireless telecoms that have a government force backed monopoly on sections of the limited useful electromagnetic spectrum).
>such a tiny handful of companies are responsible for such an enormous portion of our collective speech
"Responsible"? Every single method of speech we had in 1791, 1891, or 1991 is still with us, far easier and cheaper than ever, along with a host more. I don't agree that expanding the venues of speech in a positive-sum way somehow turns a place into a public square at all. The TOS limits are very, very loose, but even if they weren't why should that be a matter for government to step in? Why should people not have to put a few bucks where their mouths are if they want to break other people's rules on other people's property?
I do think that quasi-government power is a thing, and agree with some of the older SCOTUS cases vs their more recent pruning back. But my concern would be more at the level of physical fiber connections or access to payment systems. With skill, effort and money people should be able to get put up their message without threat of violence, but I'm not at all convinced that needs to be in any specific private venue (disclaimer, I don't actually have a twitter, facebook, or any other such service account at all, never did, which may bias my view on how necessary they are).