The Bill of Rights only covers negative rights: what Congress is explicitly forbidden from doing. Free Speech is a social norm as well as a legal construct; there are components of a civil society and Enlightenment values that have nothing to do with laws on the books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Even if one concedes that any given platform has total authority over their private property (there is a case for regulating tech giants as utilities), one is still perfectly within their rights to vehemently disagree with those decisions, or find them to be grossly counter-productive.
What is a government but a corporation that owns land and has a military? Why would you bar the government from impinging on free speech, but give nearly unbounded power to corporations to expand and snuff out free speech? If Google owned nearly everything, should we not be upset when they negate our rights?
Corporations might not be able to legally detain or use traditional force against people, but they can coerce and threaten people's livelihoods. Exile is an effective means of getting compliance.
This is a fairly cheap argument. Presumably the reasons why it's bad for the government to ban speech are also largely applicable to platforms that are almost universally used to discover new viewpoints.
In many perspectives, government is considered special because of the "monopoly on force."
Having a compelling platform is very different from that. Nobody is saying "you can't say that under threat of force" they say "I choose to respond to you saying that by exercising my own rights." Do you think anyone who waves a sign on the side of an intersection should also be entitled to an editorial in the local newspaper, say?
People today have fairly limited imaginations after a couple decades of "algorithmic search and recommendation" platforms. But the internet before Google was quite successful with organic word of mouth and hyperlinks. And nobody in that world was forced to provide links to anyone they didn't like either.
You're free to make that argument and try to get a new law or amendment passed, but the existing laws and Constitution very clearly only apply to government.
You're completely missing the point. I'm making an argument about how companies should behave, not how they are legally obligated to.
Incidentally, YouTube, Twitter, etc. should be subject to far stricter regulation when they enforce speech codes and don't behave as neutral platforms.
