> "think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, " You don't provide any justification for this
My justification is two fold. Number one, I think there's a large amount of people who believe that these new media should be covered by free speech. I think you can disagree, but just the fact that a lot of people think so makes it legitimate in my opinion. The question is, is it reasonable for others who don't think so, and what's the right balance. It's one thing to say people can exercise there right to free speech on these new media platforms, and another to allow them to be abused by various bad actors, or for undemocratic political gain.
My second justification is that these platforms effectively steal public channels of their attention, through subsidization.
In my opinion, if you subvert public spheres by making spheres of discussion that are more enticing, but still free, but obviously you make money from secondary means from it. This in itself is against free speech.
People trying to exercise their free speech shouldn't have the added difficulty of having to compete with your platform to get people's attention and time of day.
My third justification is, we have to go back to what we even mean by the right to free speech.
> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Now logically, this implies an assumption that you can assemble and petition somewhere that will reach others and the government.
It would be silly to say, ok, you're allowed to do this, but only in some isolated room that's sound proof by yourself.
What that means is to me, it implies there has to be a way to do it that can reach others and the government, and that's also an implied right.
If people are now online and on some social media platform, and that's realistically the only place to reach others and the government, I think it makes it that that place now becomes the place where this right applies.
Finally, my last justification is on the public/private debate.
Public means:
> done, perceived, or existing in open view
> ordinary people in general; the community
I think even if you're a private space, but you open yourself to the public in that sense, it does make you a public sphere, and so again the right of the ordinary people you've invited now applies.
In the end though, I don't think all of this matters much, like I said, I think just the fact many people are asking for this can be good enough to consider a reasonable way of making it happen. And I think what I described is sensible, will protect the platforms from abuse, the people from having the platform subverted by bad actors or people looking to manipulate or control a narrative for their own interests, but also give an avenue for people to petition for changes in a fair manner.