The situation is nuanced. It's not black and white–it's not easy. There is some balance to be struck on free speech. Some speech should be protected (dissent against the government), some should be forbidden (inciting a riot), and it's a thorny ever evolving problem to figure out what exactly defines those terms.
1. Absolute free speech
2. People who have the power to censor, and abuse it
You're basically just adding a third option
3. People who have the power to censor, and don't abuse it.
I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation.
edit: formatting
I think many people would argue that #3 is not impossible, or an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree power is always being abused in #2. In which case, GP's original 2 options are indeed a false dichotomy, rather than the reality of the situation.
It's a private company, and one can start another one that caters to a different crowd (see Parler or w/e). The government is in no position to stop that, and nobody in this thread is arguing they be given such power.
As far as truly public spaces go, the law still allows all speech. Government can't stop someone from voicing their opinion at a public meeting based on content, etc. Even if it's Covid misinformation or something.
We may decide it's better to not allow rioting speech, but that doesn't make it a false dichotomy.
>you can either have ... In the real world those are your only two options