U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

I agree, however it doesn't say you have to be able to reach all or even a large percentage of the people, that they have to listen, and the like for the government.

When the first amendment was written if you were to go outside and protest in a public square how many people would hear your speech? As for the government, that's what elections are for. You can also contact your member of congress or send a letter. They ignore you? Don't vote for them.

"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."

This is an appeal to extremes. Being censored by private companies does not lead to complete isolation of your speech because there are multiple private companies and other ways of expressing yourself.

----------------------------

"If people are now online and on some social media platform, and that's realistically the only place to reach others and the government, "

Why? Whatever method of reaching government prior to social media existing still exist now. Why is it "realistically the only place"?

---------------------------

"Public means: done, perceived, or existing in open view > ordinary people in general; the community"

This is the definition of the word "public" in the public/private space debate we are talking about "public space" which isn't a word and doesn't have a defitinion in the diction however just a few lines from Wikipedia:

'A public space is a place that is open and accessible to the general public. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks, and beaches are typically considered public space.'

What a public space is or isn't is debatable. However what isn't is a private space. A business is a private space. A home is a private. Facebook's servers are private property on private space.

If I have an open house (because I'm selling) and invite the public that doesn't mean people can come in and say whatever they want. This is like a public area of Walmart, it's public per the companies rules not the state. ------------------------------

"I think just the fact many people are asking for this can be good enough to consider a reasonable way of making it happen"

The first amendment to the US condition is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't say people or businesses can't make rules regulating free speech. You want to change this there is a process to amend the constitution.

Perhaps a quote from Gov Abbott -

"During my time as a judge, as a justice, and as attorney general, I've had one overarching goal, and that is a strict interpretation and application of the laws and the Constitution.

>Perdí varias cosas en Buenos Aires... No me quejo. Con tantas personas perdidas, llorar por las cosas sería como faltarle el respeto al dolor.

Translates roughly as:

>I lost various things in Buenos Aires... I don't complain. With so many people lost, to cry over things seemed to lack respect for suffering.

In a kind of similar vein, you're complaint about Twitter users being silenced lacks some respect for people who are actually being silenced. Although I agree with your underlying sentiment.

But this doesn’t mention barring banning accounts because they break ToS about bot usage.