> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
Marsh v Alabama may not currently apply to digital spaces, but it's not inconceivable that in the future there will be another SCOTUS ruling to clarify this new emerging scenario.
I am familiar with that topic too, but like you said it doesn't apply to the internet.
I suspect the conditions that it is offered at will matter. If I offer my land for yoga I probably can still filter someone who tries to hold a practice for their rock band.
ELUAs and such would come into play.
Let alone that I'm not yet sure if SCOTUS as a group really understands technology.
Sure it does. FB is a communication platform that adheres to the principles of free speech or it isn't.
Here, they are demonstrating (among other times) that they do not believe in free speech. It is their right. Just as it is their right to collect user data and resell it.
The ramification being that some people my choose to understand the world differently from you. The answer to that worry is to make compelling points in your favour, or maybe try to understand the other side of the argument. Freedom comes at the expense of security, and security in this instance is overstepping its boundaries.
