>1a issues have gotten a lot more complicated
Nothing ever has, or could be, simpler than the concept of free speech and free thought.
Nothing ever has, or could be, simpler than the concept of free speech and free thought.
There are two discussions happening about this, though. One is simply a critique of the social media platforms, i.e. they may be legally entitled to do this, but is it actually the right way to behave? The second is a question regarding whether or not it should be legal. To be clear: it is legal. But given that these are functionally monopolistic entities, and they do operate as the de facto town square, should they be made to accommodate broader speech?
The person who claimed it seems to have gotten it wrong at step 0 however, which is kind of funny.
And if the answer is it’s always in party B’s court, then you make the situation very difficult when it comes to social media and even direct messaging platforms between two private entities.
I don't think social media platforms have any legal obligation to allow anyone to state anything. It was a culture that had formed on the net in most places. I has no relation to the law or the US first amendment in any way. It was a foundational rule for the exchange of ideas and that always requires freedom of speech.
Also, almost every institution that want intellectual exchange has to adhere to the principle because it is a fundamental part of dialectic. Many educational institutions are falling short here lately, but at least most are improving again. But that is a completely different topic.
People that silence others without a justification are rightfully looked down upon in my personal opinion because they are not capable of intellectual exchange. And these ideas are also enshrined in human rights for a reason, although these are sadly also not really legally binding.
addendum: Also, this conversation is taking place over the internet, via devices that use grid electricity.