are TikTok, X, YouTube, Facebook, even BlueSky "private platforms"? certainly there are senses in which they are! they are organized under private firms. 1/

but there are senses in which they may not be "private". for some of them, their ubiquity and reach is such that they can significantly, unilateral, affect coordination at a systemic level. i'd argue makes them inherently public in an important sense. drafts.interfluidity.com/2023/03/31/s... 2/

plus, the fact that much of the value of these platforms comes from enclosing network effects—which I'd argue should be understood normatively and ultimately legally as property of the public—undermines a claim to their merely being ordinary firms, private speakers under the constitution. 3/

does this mean that Newsom — or DeSantis or Abbott — are right or righteous in the ways they have tried or proposed to regulate these firms? absolutely not. 4/

but i do think that arguments of the form "these are private firms, we have a first amendment, therefore these firms' rights claims trump all other complaints by all other stakeholders QED" are insufficient. 5/

these are not pamphleteers. you can just distribute your own pamphlet if you don't like their speech. they present more serious problems to traditional understandings of free speech than that. /fin