I disagree wholeheartedly with this mindset.

It comes back to the question of whether a company should be able to deny the service of a customer based on its own internal decision making. So lets use a real world example, how about a baker denying service to a person based on sexual orientation. Should the company be forced to provide a service if it goes against their conscience? I believe the answer should and always will be: No. However, the economic and social ramifications of that company denying service is at their own risk and demise. Furthermore, any company should be allowed to modify, terminate, and/or otherwise control whatever service they provide. Which is the agreed upon User Agreement Terms that all people must agree to when they sign up for a social media service. This agreement means that you acknowledge that you will play by their rules, and that you forego your First Amendment rights absolutely, at the mercy and whims of the social media company.

That is the fucking point.

Whatever users write on social media is at the complete control via the User Agreement Terms unless otherwise stated. So yes, users have full control of what they write on social media and a company has zero reason to maintain, distribute, or display any information that users create for any reason whatsoever.

Social media companies CAN ban/shadow ban anyone for anything that they don't like. You are forever at the mercy of a private company and you did so freely by agreeing to their terms. If you don't like this approach, don't use social media. Economics. I do not want an internet where a private company is forced to be the voice box of any particular political philosophy that they did not choose, let alone ANY agenda that they do not choose or agree with.

That is the danger of insisting that social media should be at the behest of the First Amendment. If a person is ignorant of this fact, they need a REAL reality check.

Yes, I also agree with you from a moral standpoint that it doesn't seem right, but if you agree to their terms by creating an account, you play by their rules.

Honestly, the point I'm trying to make with the baker analogy is only to understand who has the final say: the company has the final say on what actions they will perform and the customer has the final say on where they spend their time and money.

There are actually plenty of alternatives to Twitter, but obviously these corporations own the largest market share. However, to blame Twitter or Facebook for that is misguided. They are as big as they are because customers have decided to agree to their terms, and if those terms change, Twitter and others have to send updated User Terms, at which point all users have every right to cancel their accounts. Any complaints about a company's policies whilst still being a customer is their own fault. :)

Why can't they?

Individual freedoms mean having the right to decide what content you want to host on your privately owned servers. Forcing companies to host content against their will their servers is anti-freedom and anti-free-speech. It's no different from forcing someone to place sign on their yard for a political candidate they dislike.

A private company being able to ban/shadowban people is part of their own free speech. Not to mention free speech doesn't extend into the private sector.

Twitter is private from the point of view that matters at hand; that is, the legal one. Whether or not you can see content without an account has no bearing on this as this is a matter of ownership and liability. Even if it did, you cannot participate in those discussions without an account.

Laws pertaining to free speech do not apply here, as has been established time and again, partly because, like I said, it is their free speech in the wider gamut to remove things they don't want. Twitter's right to free speech exists in the public space, but your right to speech extends as far as Twitter's terms of service.

This all seems mostly disingenuous anyway -- the bias is very exaggerated. The right is mostly backed by armies of bots (a violation) and generally people who flaunt the rules more (anecdotally). Just something else to be outraged at.

If that is the case, then so be it. At least that would be the correct way, even if I disagree with it. These are in no way monopolies. You have an enormous amount of choice when it comes to where to post whatever it is you want to post, regardless of whether anyone follows you there or not.

It's private in the sense that the servers are privately owned and therefore the owners should have the right to decide what goes on there.