Comment by avar

    > Whereas what the 1A actually 
    > states is the exact opposite:
    > That platform has the right to
    > ban that user, and the
    > government is constitutionally
    > restrained: If the government
    > were to make a law that forces
    > this social network to unban
    > this user, that'd be the 1A
    > violation.

If I build a bridge and offer it for public use for a toll, and I overhear you saying something I don't like as you travel across in your car, you think the government stepping in if I ban you from traversing the bridge solely for that reason is a 1A violation?

This principle is obvious if I was running a newspaper and printing user-submitted comments. I can have whatever inclusion policy I deem fit, or my own speech would be curtailed.

But this is now being applied by private companies in cases wildly removed from that. Meta er whoever can ban two users having a private conversation on their platform.

It seems to me that the private bridge builder in the example above has a stronger case than these companies in such cases.

Perhaps I overhear that you dislike fast-food, and I only sell billboard space to fast-food companies.

Or perhaps you think that would be just fine, and we just need to close the technological gap of being able to embed hypersensitive microphones into asphalt.