Yes, and it's shocking to see people cheer it on. An oft-heard refrain is about the legal right of the first amendment of the US constitution preventing the government from blocking speech, but that is based on the natural right of freedom of speech, as Hobbes and Locke would differentiate. Social media platforms are at such a scale in the modern day that they are essentially the public square, so the government blocking them is akin to blocking free speech in the legal right itself.
Some might say, you can publish elsewhere on your own domain, but again, it's like barricading the public square and only allowing one to speak in the middle of a forest; if no one but the trees listen, what is the point of the natural right to free speech?
I don’t really think of social media companies as being the public square. They are more like private clubs, just with really low standards for membership.
IMO the bigger problem is the total lack of a public square these days.
The internet is more pseudonymous than we’re used to dealing with, compared to the in-person public square. People behave in ways that would normally cause their acquiescences to use their freedom of association, and avoid them. Online attempts at a public square tend to be pretty annoying, as a result.
These private clubs are the de-facto quasi-public square, is my point. In virtual space, the government is not hosting some sort of public social media so people are forced to use private corporations' services to voice their thoughts.
> Social media platforms are at such a scale in the modern day that they are essentially the public square
This is a ridiculous assertion.
The local Costco is "at such a scale in the modern day" that it, too, is essentially a public square. It's still private property, though. If you show up in Aisle 6 trying to convert people to Mormonism, a Costco employee will ask you to leave and stop harassing their customers. Yes, the same principle applies to Twitter, Facebook, X, Truth Social and Instagram.
What gives you the right to leverage their private property as your soapbox? Because people on the sidewalk won't listen, and that hurts your feelings? They have a business, if you are using your speech in any way to obstruct the conduct of their thoroughfare then they can have you ejected. The cops will not listen to your tirade against multinational burger tyrants, they'll drop you off at the drunk tank. Your speech will never be unconditionally protected, not online or in real life.
It's not McDonald's either, a singular location does not serve billions. The difference between a physical and virtual location is one of scale. As for your other paragraph, the point is that these corporations have gotten so large and people depend on them so much that being banned on them is essentially akin to being exiled from the ability to have free speech in modern society, whatever restrictions you want to reasonably put on them. What is the alternative you want people to use if, like Nepal, the government bans social media platforms, that I have not already addressed?
With your linking of that xkcd, it's clear you're misunderstanding my point about legal vs natural rights, as I stated initially.
Many places in the USA, but not everywhere, have sidewalks around the parking lot that are going to be publicly owned so you can set up with signs and a megaphone there.
Some might say, you can publish elsewhere on your own domain, but again, it's like barricading the public square and only allowing one to speak in the middle of a forest; if no one but the trees listen, what is the point of the natural right to free speech?