Q or lawanon,
1) It's well established that the First Amendment does not apply to non-state actors who suppress speech for any reason as they have the First Amendment right to associate with whom they want.
3) We know that Google, Facebook, et al, are censoring speech that would be permissible in almost any other forum and wouldn't be subject to the exceptions carved out of the First Amendment.
4) What if the federal or state government(s) had substantial ownership, board seats, were a major stockholder, assisted with the creation, or had some type of controlling interest in Google, Facebook, et. al? Wouldn't this remove them from being a non-state actor and then subject to the First Amendment? Where would this line be drawn and wouldn't it need to be drawn by the courts?
5) We know that states' pensions invest in the stock market and we know that major investors are allowed to be active investors and help establish company policies.
6) We know that the CIA set up a venture capital investment firm called IN-Q-TEL to fund promising start-ups that might create technology useful for intelligence gathering. This normally wouldn't be an issue as long as our protected rights aren't violated.
7) For example, we know that Google purchased keyhole from IN-Q-TEL.
8) Another example to show that the ties from the government to Google are intertwined is Michele Weslander Quaid, who is Google's Chief Technology Officer (Public Sector) & Innovation Evangelist. Previously, Michele was the Director of National Intelligence's senior representative to SecDef's ISR Task Force and a Senior Advisor to Director of JCWS (OUSDI). She was the Chief Technology Officer and Deputy Chief Information Officer for the National Reconnaissance Office. She was the Intelligence Community Deputy Chief Information Officer for the DNI.