Let the laws and courts determine that. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.
You could argue that freedom of speech is a sacrosant right, like the right to live, that no law(not even the constitution) can overrule. You will lost that battle, with reason, because things like child pornography or slander must not be protected.
So the second approach is to say, ok, some things are better censored, let the laws to clearly define that. If something must be appended or removed, do it through the appropriate channel, sponsor a bill, vote it, make it law, create the precedent.Rinse and repeat. A tedious game, but a needed one.
What you cannot do is to let the techno-barons to decide themselves what should or shouldnt be said, when they are managing platforms that are quasi-monopolistic.
If there is one thing about laws is that they're messy and complex, a reflection of the world we live in. Our culture and values constantly evolve, and the laws are normally following those so something legal or illegal at this moment might not be in the future.
So, we should rely on state censorship in preference to the free marketplace of ideas competing for private support to relay them?
So yes, I would prefer the existing system, where state censorship is extremely limited, to a situation where instead censorship is much more broad and effects more people.
If the speech is legal, then it should be allowed on major communication platforms.
There is even existing laws for this, that we could expand to cover new forms of media.
Those existing laws are called common carrier laws, and they currently apply to the phone network, and they could be changed to include many of the major new platforms.
Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial. I would hope that you do not think as they apply to the phone system, that they are some huge example of unfairness.
This whole movement of people begging the government to prevent companies from curating their content, under the guise of fucking free speech of all things, is so deep into doublespeak territory that it just leaves me in awe.
Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial. Those existing laws could be updated to include communication networks that are more relevant in the modern day.
They accomplish this simply by attacking the organizations on another front. Never underestimate the coercive nature of politicians whose own countries forbid censorship they can get another to do for them.
The simple fact is, our western values are not the world's values.