It's the least bad approach by far -- the alternative would be the government telling social media companies that they had to publish materials, including some that they had religious and moral objections to -- which is obviously unconstitutional. Could you imagine a world in which inflammatory but legal posts had to be carried? Advocating for late-term abortions on Christian Mingle or calling for a Holocaust on a Jewish social media site?

The point is who decides what is acceptable or not, who decides it, and what "free speech" they are allowed to interfere with.

> Not sure what point you're trying to make. I'd love to hear if you know what point you're trying to make. Suppose I have you an answer to each of those questions. Now what?

not sure what is confusing?

your initial comment was:

> Why is a private company calling the shots on speech in a free society to begin with?

so...what should private companies permit to be published, then, if you don't want them doing that?

should they allow absolutely everything? nuclear secrets? gruesome murders?

or just everything "legal"? legal where? the US? which bit? so the lawyers at Facebook need to be enforcing Mississippi's laws on everyone? or just people in Mississippi?

do they have to publish abusive but legal stuff? what about when their advertisers leave in disgust? can they stop then? are advertisers allowed to leave or is that also "calling the shots"?

why do you feel the "free speech" of child murderers to publish their videos is more important than the "free speech" of the sysadmin operating the video hosting platform who doesn't want to spread that?