In a former ruling for a case a judge argued Donald Trump's Twitter account was a public forum.
But recently there was another case, where PragerU media sued Youtube, arguing that they infringed freedom of speech because Youtube was a public forum, and it also becomes a state actor (something I came to the same conclusion before reading this case when just thinking about these kind of issues)
This last case the judge said
The Supreme Court in that case found that "merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints."
To me this judge is doing a workaround to avoid saying the word "Youtube isnt a public forum", because there are other rulings which said social networks were in other situations, but at the same time the judge seems to be implying it isnt for this case.
Could the Equal Protection Clause apply here? How can a social network like Twitter be under certain circunstances a "public forum", and another social network apparently to be implied not to be? Or how can it be argued that "First Amendment doesnt apply to Youtube", but the First Amendment applies to Twitter?
It looks to me the judges arguments in social networks issues in relation with freedom of speech are getting more and more obscure and fuzzy, to avoid showing there is a double standard.