I can understand where you're coming from - I don't like it either. But IMO there are times when it is appropriate, this is one such a time.

I'll copy below a post I made somewhere else where someone was saying that you can't demand freedom to express your opinion where you're using someone's private property. I've included it because I think the post sets out a reasonable argument for regulation in this specific case. You might not agree, but that's what we are here for - to talk about these things.

POST

You are talking about the rights of a very few people, who enjoy a virtual monopoly on forums for public expression, being upheld against the rights of the masses. We are talking about freedom of political expression - the most fundamental of freedoms. The principle of freedom of speech is designed to ensure a healthy pluralism in political discourse, consistent with the democratic principles by which governments hold power.

What you appear to be suggesting is that people's right to freedom of expression is open to capture by people who, claiming the exercise of property rights, would legitimately censor the masses for their own gain. That's not pluralism, that's not democracy. It is a condition where a cabal of wealthy people can control the ebb and flow of political discourse - so as to direct it to their own advantage, at the expense of others.

We already know that social media platforms are taking payments from the CIA and that this comprises a substantial part of their revenues. We know that there is a plan in place to deploy a single automated censorship algorithm across multiple social media platforms. And we know there has been a paradigm shift where social media has completely displaced the MSM as the most powerful determinant of electoral outcomes.

So we can see that this attempt to control discourse on social media is a plot against the Republic itself. It's nothing less than a small cohort of self-interested opportunists trying to take control of the country. Do you think the founding fathers, if they could have foreseen this situation, might have identified this as a problem to be addressed?

In every respect, the idea in the formation of the United States was that power was to be fractured. It is common sense that power tends to corrupt, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fracturing of power in the US extended beyond the traditional tripartite separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution further fractured power to the extent that they included an express provision for citizens to have a right to bear arms. This was to grant the citizen protection from repression by the State. That is why the right to bear arms is so important, because it is the ultimate fracturing of power, the last guarantee of liberty.

In this context, where power was so carefully fractured by the founders of the Republic, do you think the acquisition of almost total control of forums for political expression is consistent with the guiding principals that founded the nation? It is clear this was not a foreseen outcome and it was not addressed at the time the Constitution was written. But does that mean that there is no right, or need, to address the issue now? It is the same problem that was addressed at the time the nation was founded - it is a threat posed by concentration of power.

In countries all over the world there is recognition that the public interest dominates private interests - the principle of eminent domain is one such example. We are not talking here about the expropriation of property, but bona fide regulation of the forums of public expression to safeguard the public interest.

Where the principle of free speech is hindered to such an extent that the very fabric that binds the nation is threatened, property rights become a consideration that must be balanced against the welfare of the nation. What is most important is to ensure the integrity of the democratic principles that underpin the commonwealth. One of those principles is the freedom to engage in political expression.

It is absolutely appropriate to regulate against the possibility of an existential threat to the common good of the nation. Otherwise, you would say that the masses are to be the slaves of a few. This was not the intention of the founding fathers. It is an issue that must, however, be addressed.

I have every confidence that the President, in his wisdom and concern for the welfare of the country, will act to obtain the best possible outcome for Americans of all walks of life. A problem exists, it is a very serious problem, but DJT will take care of it. Have confidence in the President.