> Why should we consider them public spaces when they are private companies?
As the other commenter is suggesting a change to the status quo, what legal status they have now isn't important, but instead what matters is role they serve in society.
Personally I think the US idea of freedom of speech is too anarchic to be sustainable, but even with that, the de-facto power that Big Tech has over communication (and commerce) means I think Big Tech should be held to a similar standard in this regard as any government.
The power of their algorithms that decide who sees what content and when. The power to remove people from platforms that are competing to become de facto standards for communication, and to do so for reasons not limited to their legal obligations.
Do you mean “Who is “Big Tech”?” Because I don’t want another ambiguous response in this chain, there are already more than enough we might be on completely different pages.
> Are you claiming that some number of tech companies , a grouping you haven't defined, are in collusion?
Competition, not collusion.
> Do you have proof of this?
The terms and conditions for the various platforms. You know, the stuff you have to click to confirm you’ve read and agreed to but virtually nobody bothers.
Just because terms and conditions are similar doesn't mean there is collusion. Your claim is that this grouping of companies that isn't even well defined per the wiki article is taking actions as a unit
I've explicitly and repeatedly said competition not collusion.
When you asked for proof, I thought you were asking for proof that they could remove people from their platforms for reasons other than legal obligations; that is what I am saying is evidenced by the T&Cs.
You asked me "What power do they have?", and this is that, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32876080 was about that too, and was not whatever you're trying to make this about now.
And social media companies only control what is said on their platform not "online" aka the entire internet as you said