This argument is antithetical to the entire history of free speech jurisprudence and common law.
In Marsh v. Alabama, it was ruled (in line with all previous precedent) that privately owned roadways and sidewalks had to allow religious pamphleters, even though it is private property. The court asserted that anywhere that is the forum for public discussion is de facto allowed for political and religious speech regardless of property rights. In the very early days of the Internet things changed, when people tried to assert First Amendment claims on Compuserve chats. Compuserve claimed they weren't the public square, that they were a private service. I think they were correct, in that Compuserve was a very marginal private space and couldn't possibly have been "the public square". But precedent over this tiny service were eventually laundered into much larger and more critical bits of social infrastructure.
In contrast to Compuserve, Twitter and Facebook are definitely the public square. You cannot petition for a redress of grievances or lobby for policy changes without using them. If Nostr is successful, it will also be the public square. And the political left delights in suppressing their opponents on them but files lawsuits claiming their rights are infringed when they aren't given access to every inch -- such as when they sued Trump for blocking them on his Twitter account:
Supreme Court tosses dispute over Trump blocking critics on Twitter
The former president was sued by seven Twitter users whose accounts he blocked after they criticized him and his policies.
This hypocrisy must quickly end, or we as a country will end up in a violent conflict. There must be open, public debate on every major platform, and Americans must be entitled to express their opinions because the only other alternative is violence.
Using this line of “it’s private property so nobody has to hear or see you speak” is a subversive lie propagated by international Jewish Communists who owned or otherwise controlled Internet companies via critical staff positions to be able to unilaterally censor criticism of them and their agendas regardless of popular will.
